The Acquisition of Intensifiers: Emphatic Reflexives in English and German Child Language

The Acquisition of Intensifiers

≥

Studies on Language Acquisition 22

Editor Peter Jordens

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

The Acquisition of Intensifiers Emphatic Reflexives in English and German Child Language by Insa Gülzow

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gülzow, Insa, 1967⫺ The acquisition of intensifiers : emphatic reflexives in English and German child language / by Insa Gülzow. p. cm. ⫺ (Studies on language acquisition ; 22) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018591-1 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 3-11-018591-1 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. German language ⫺ Reflexives. 2. English language ⫺ Reflexives. 3. German language ⫺ Acquisition. 4. English language ⫺ Acquisition. 5. German language ⫺ Grammar, Comparative ⫺ English. 6. English language ⫺ Grammar, Comparative ⫺ German. I. Title. II. Series. PF3315.R4G85 2006 4351.6⫺dc22 2005034186

ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018591-1 ISBN-10: 3-11-018591-1 ISSN 1861-4248 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at ⬍http://dnb.ddb.de⬎. 쑔 Copyright 2006 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Sigurd Wendland, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Für meine Großmutter, Grete Finger To my grandmother, Grete Finger

Contents

Chapter 1 Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions 1. The aim of the study 2. Intensifiers from a cross-linguistic perspective 2.1. Morphosyntactic properties 2.2. Use types and contexts of occurrence 2.2.1. Adnominal intensifiers 2.2.2. Adverbial exclusive intensifiers 2.2.3. Age effect 2.2.4. Implied competence 2.2.5. Adverbial inclusive intensifiers 2.2.6. Summary 3. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns 3.1. Formal identity versus formal distinctness 3.2. Non-referential use of reflexives 3.3. Reflexives in subject position 3.4. Summary 4. Agent-sensitive expressions 4.1. Basic notions 4.1.1. Selbst/allein versus von selbst/von allein 4.1.2. Causative relations 4.1.3. Compositionality of the AGENT proto-role 4.1.4. Von selbst/von allein and volition 4.1.5. Causativity and volition 4.1.6. Von selbst/von allein with inanimate referents 4.1.7. Summary 4.2. Inner structure and overview of syntax 4.3. Selbst/selber and x-self 4.4. Allein, by x-self and on one’s own 4.5. Von selbst/von allein, by itself and on its own 4.6. Von sich aus, aus eigenem Antrieb/Willen and of one’s own accord 5. Framework for child language data analysis

1 1 4 5 7 8 9 11 12 13 15 15 16 18 20 21 22 24 25 26 28 29 31 34 36 36 42 46 51 52 53

viii

Contents

Chapter 2 The expression x-self in acquisition studies 1. Reflexive x-self and binding theory 1.1. Binding condition A and the acquisition of the adnominal intensifier 1.2. Children’s knowledge of principle B 1.2.1. Pragmatic principle P 1.2.2. Sentence-level and discourse-level anaphora 1.2.3. Lexical failure 1.2.4. The subset principle 1.3. Summary 2. Logophoric reflexives 2.1. Logophoric reflexives and intensifiers 2.2. The acquisition of logophoric reflexives 3. Children’s early systems and historical development of x-self 4. The expression x-self in production data 5. Research questions 5.1 The emergence of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions 5.2. Intensifiers versus reflexive pronouns Chapter 3 Intensifiers in German and English production data 1. The data and coding procedure 1.1. The data 1.2. Coding procedure 2. Three use-types of intensifiers in the data of the children 2.1. Proportions of adnominal, adverbial exclusive and adverbial inclusive intensifiers 2.2. Inclusive intensifiers and additive focus particles auch and too 2.3. Inclusive intensifiers in contexts of independent agency 2.3.1. Kerstin’s use of adverbial inclusive selbst/selber 2.3.2. Adam’s use of adverbial inclusive x-self 2.3.3. Summary 3. Intensifiers versus related agent-sensitive expressions 3.1. The German children 3.1.1. Caroline: selbst/selber and allein 3.1.2. Kerstin: selbst/selber and allein

54 55 57 60 61 64 68 71 73 75 76 79 82 85 88 92 93 94 94 94 97 100 101 103 104 105 110 112 112 114 115 117

Contents

3.1.3. Simone: selbst/selber and allein 3.1.4. Julia, Daniel and Mathias: allein 3.1.5. Summary 3.2. The English children 3.2.1. Ross, Nina and Shem: x-self and by x-self 3.2.2. Adam, Abe and Sarah: x-self and by x-self 3.2.3. Summary 4. The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency 4.1. Quantitative considerations 4.2. The German children’s use of allein: Caroline 4.2.1. Caroline’s use of allein: 0;10-1;9 4.2.2. Caroline’s use of allein: 1;10-2;0 4.2.3. Caroline’s use of allein: 2,1-2;3 4.2.4. Caroline’s use of allein: 2,4-2;6 4.2.5. Caroline’s use of allein: 2;7-2;9 4.2.6. Summary 4.3. Kerstin’s use of allein 4.3.1. Kerstin’s use of allein: 2;7-2;9 4.3.2. Kerstin’s use of allein: 2;10-3;3 4.3.3. The category ‘other’ and Kerstin’s use of allein: 3;4-3;6 4.3.4. Summary 4.4. Simone’s use of allein 4.4.1. Simone’s use of allein: 1;9-2;0 4.4.2. Simone’s use of allein: 2,1-2;3 4.4.3. Simone’s use of allein: 2;4-2;6 4.4.4. Simone’s use of allein: 2;7-3;0 4.4.5. Simone’s use of allein: 3;1-3;6 4.4.6. Simone’s use of allein: 3;7-4;0 4.4.7. Summary 4.5. Julia’s, Daniel’s and Mathias’ use of allein 4.6. The German children’s use of selbst/selber: Caroline 4.6.1. Caroline’s use of selbst/selber: 2;1-2;3 4.6.2. Caroline’s use of selbst/selber: 2;4-2;6 4.6.3. Caroline’s use of selbst/selber: 2;7-2;9 4.6.4. Summary 4.7. Kerstin’s use of selbst/selber 4.8. Simone’s use of selbst/selber 4.8.1. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 1;10-2;0

ix

118 118 119 119 120 121 122 123 123 125 126 128 131 133 136 137 138 138 140 141 142 142 143 146 151 153 155 158 159 160 162 162 163 171 173 174 176 176

x

Contents

4.8.2. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 2;7.2;9 4.8.3. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 2;10-3;0 4.8.4. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 3,1-3;3 4.8.5. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 3;4-3;9 4.8.6. Summary 4.9. The English children’s use of by x-self: Ross 4.9.1. Ross’s use of by x-self: 2;6-2;9 4.9.2. Ross’s use of by x-self: 2,10-3,0 4.9.3. Ross’s use of by x-self: 3;1-3;9 4.9.4. Ross’s use of by x-self: 4;1-4;3 4.9.5. Summary 4.10. Nina’a use of by x-self 4.10.1. Nina’s use of by x-self: 2;4-2;9 4.10.2. Nina’s use of by x-self: 2;10-3;0 4.10.3. Nina’s use of by x-self: 3,1-3;3 4.10.4. Summary 4.11. Shem’s use of by x-self 4.11.1. Shem’s use of by x-self: 2;4-2;6 4.11.2. Shem’s use of by x-self: 2;7-2;9 4.11.3. Shem’s use of by x-self: 2;10-3;0 4.11.4. Shem’s use of by x-self: 3;1-3;3 4.11.5. Summary 4.12. Adam’s use of by x-self 4.12.1. Adam’s use of by x-self: 2;1-3;0 4.12.2. Adam’s use of by x-self: 3;1-4;0 4.12.3. Adam’s use of by x-self: 4,1-4;6 4.12.4. Summary 4.13. Abe’s use of by x-self 4.13.1. Abe’s use of by x-self: 2;7-2;9 4.13.2. Abe’s use of by x-self: 2;10-3;0 4.13.3. Abe’s use of by x-self: 3;1-3;3 4.13.4. Abe’s use of by x-self: 3;4-5;0 4.13.5. Summary 4.14. Sarah’s use of by x-self 4.15. The English children’s use of x-self: Ross 4.16. Nina’s use of x-self 4.17. Shem’s use of x-self 4.18. Adam’s use of x-self 4.18.1. Adam’s use of x-self: 2,1-4;0 4.18.2. Adam’s use of x-self: 4,1-4;3

177 178 180 181 182 183 184 184 186 187 188 188 189 190 192 192 193 193 194 195 196 196 197 197 198 201 202 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 211 212 214 214 215

Contents

4.18.3. Adam’s use of x-self: 4;4-4;6 4.18.4. Adam’s use of x-self: 4;7-4;9 4.18.5. Adam’s use of x-self: 4;10-5;0 4.18.6. Summary 4.19. Abe’s use of x-self 4.20. Sarah’s use of x-self 5. The German and English children’s systems of agent-sensitive expressions 5.1. The German children 5.1.1. Allein 5.1.2. Selbst/selber 5.1.3. Summary 5.2. The English children 5.2.1. By x-self 5.2.2. X-self 5.2.3. Summary 5.3. Similarities and differences 5.3.1. Allein and by x-self 5.3.2. Selbst/selber versus x-self 5.3.3. Rejections 5.3.4. Summary 6. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns 6.1. The order of emergence of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns 6.1.1. Shem 6.1.2. Ross 6.1.3. Nina 6.1.4. Adam 6.1.5. Abe 6.1.6. Sarah 6.1.7. Summary 6.2. The expression x-self in subject position 7. Implications for future research Notes References Index

xi

216 218 218 219 219 222 225 225 226 227 228 229 230 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 236 238 239 240 241 242 244 244 245 249 255 261 265 275

Chapter 1 Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

1. The aim of the study In this study, the acquisition of intensifiers by children acquiring German or English as their first language is analyzed. The longitudinal production data of six German-speaking and six English-speaking children will be examined with regard to when and in which contexts intensifiers appear in their data. The intensifiers German selbst/selber and English x-self (myself, yourself, himself, etc.) can be differentiated into three use types: an adverbial exclusive, see (1), an adverbial inclusive, see (2), and an adnominal use type, see (3), (König 1991). (1) I always grow tomatoes myself. (2) I have had a wonderful childhood myself. (3) President Bush himself had lunch with the major. The two basic properties of intensifiers are that they evoke alternatives to the referent of their focus and that they relate a central referent to more peripheral alternative referents (König 2001). Intensifiers can serve as a means to structure the participants of a child’s discourse. By integrating intensifiers into their utterances, children can identify themselves or others as central in relation to the other members of their discourse. The notion of being included or excluded in a certain state of affairs is relevant for children when interacting with their parents and/or other children. In the course of development, children acquire a number of both linguistic and non-linguistic skills that characterize them as increasingly independent and competent agents. In this process, intensifiers are an important linguistic device with which children can negotiate and comment on their participation in a given event. In both English and German, intensifiers are the core members of a class of expressions that are all related, but distinct in their function. In German, besides the prototypical representative selbst/selber, expressions such as von selbst, von allein, allein, von sich aus are members of the class of intensifiers. In English the intensifier x-self is the core member of a group

2

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

of expressions such as by x-self, of one’s own accord, on one’s own, etc. The close relationship between the German intensifier selbst/selber and the expression allein, and in English the close relationship between the intensifier x-self and the expression by x-self in utterances relating to telic event structures, present the child with a situation in which two forms can serve a very similar function. In the present study the data of the children will be analyzed with regard to which form-function correspondencies initially are documented in the children’s data and how these relationships develop in the course of acquisition. In theoretical linguistics and in language acquisition studies, much research has centered on the question how the concept of agentivity is realized in a given language. In language acquisition studies it is agreed upon that the linguistic marking of the concept of agentivity is important from early on, especially in utterances relating to activities that involve the children themselves as agents (e.g. Slobin 1985). While the marking of different degrees of agentivity has been described to link up with different pronominal and nominal forms (Budwig 1989, 1995), non-nominative means of marking agentivity have not received a lot of attention. Given the close relation of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns in English, intensifiers, if mentioned at all, are dealt with as a secondary phenomenon occurring sometime during or even after the acquisition of reflexive pronouns (e.g. McDaniel, Smith Cairns and Hsu 1990; Thomas 1994). Based on the approach of König (2001) an account of intensifiers will be given that focusses on the relevant aspects of the semantic and pragmatic properties of intensifiers (chapter 1). After a brief description of the morphosyntactic properties of intensifiers, the three use types will be distinguished with regard to the contexts in which the expressions appear. On this basis the functions that are encoded when children begin to use intensifiers will be identified. A recurrent topic will be the fact that in English, intensifiers and reflexive pronouns are formally identical. In this respect, languages may belong to two types. Either a language displays formal identity of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns, as is the case in English, or the two kinds of expressions are distinct as German selbst/selber and mich/dich/sich/uns/euch. For a child acquiring English as his/her first language, the formal identity of the expressions is an interesting aspect as it can be expected that there is some kind of interaction between the two kinds of expression in the acquisition process. From a typological perspective, one of the structures that correlates with the formal identity of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns is the appearance of the expression in subject position. As this is also a frequently attested non-

The aim of the study

3

target structure in child language, the question will be pursued what children are aiming to encode with utterances such as myself has to park.1 In the second part of chapter 1 intensifiers and related expressions in German and English will be contrasted with regard to the correspondencies of forms and functions and with regard to the way in which these expressions relate to different event structures. It will be shown that all expressions discussed interact with the agentive properties of the referent of a given subject noun phrase. As was already mentioned, studies dealing with the acquisition of intensifers are rare, and most studies on the acquisition of the expression xself concentrate on how children come to use x-self as a reflexive pronoun. Despite this fact, these studies include some implicit information about what kind of knowledge may contribute to English children’s acquisition of the expression x-self when not functioning as a reflexive pronoun. In chapter 2 it will be discussed what linguistic properties characterize the children’s use of x-self in early phases of language development. The empirical part of this study rests both on the analysis of the semantic and pragmatic properties of the expressions as illustrated in chapter 1 and on positions formulated in previous research such as presented in chapter 2. The research questions derived in these chapters will serve as a guideline for the analysis of the production data presented in chapter 3. In the first part of this chapter focus will be on the emergence of intensifiers and related expressions in the language systems of the twelve children of the study. A description of which of the three use types of intensifiers are documented in the children’s data will be followed by a quantitative analysis of the different forms in relation to the event structures that the respective utterances relate to. Given the similarities of some formfunction pairings in the two languages, a quantitative analysis is a first step in answer to the question which form(s) children primarily rely on when first using these kinds of expressions. In the last step of the analysis, an investigation into the nature of the children’s form-function pairings in the course of the recording is carried out, specifically paying attention to the contexts that the children relate the expressions to. The data of the six German and the six English children will be analyzed individually before the similarities and the differences among the children acquiring the same language are compared. Then, the similarities and differences among the German and English children as a group will be discussed. The aim of a contrastive analysis of German and English children’s acquisition of intensifiers and related expressions is to draw attention to the way in which

4

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

structural differences between languages surface in the acquisition data of children. The second part of the result section illustrates the emergence of English intensifiers in comparison to reflexive pronouns. The main objective for this kind of analysis is that the specific properties of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns may contribute to the child’s use of x-self at different points in development. The results of the present study are related to findings reported in two comprehension studies on the acquisition of reflexive pronouns (Chien and Wexler 1990; McDaniel et al. 1990). Children’s systematic misinterpretation of reflexive x-self under an age of four and the claim that the acceptance of x-self in subject position at about the same age is an effect of the ongoing acquisition of the adnominal intensifier will be discussed in the light of the findings of the present study. 2. Intensifiers from a cross-linguistic perspective The aim of this study is to provide an analysis of how German-speaking and English-speaking children acquire intensifiers. The empirical part of this study will rest on a description of the semantic and pragmatic properties of intensifiers and related expressions and the contexts in which they occur. The first part (section 2) of this chapter provides a desciption of the basic properties of intensifiers. The second part (section 3) of the chapter will give a basic overview of how intensifiers and reflexive pronouns can vary along the lines of morphosyntax. Emphasis will be on the German and the English systems as these are most relevant in the subsequent analysis of the child language data. Following the semantic description of intensifiers, in the third part (section 4) an analysis with respect to expressions that are closely related to the German and the English intensifier will be given. The last part of this chapter (section 5) will set a framework for the analysis of the production data. Among the different semantic analyses which are available at present, the approach of König (2001) and Siemund (2000) will serve as the basis for the study. The outlines of the meaning of intensifiers will be given with emphasis on the contexts in which these expressions can occur. As was mentioned in the introduction, this study is mainly focussed on how children begin to use intensifiers as a means to structure the referents of their discourse in terms of their own and other’s agentive involvement in activities. While not all contexts that intensifiers can relate to are relevant in young children’s discourse, it will be shown that some contexts seem

Intensifiers from a cross-linguistic perspective

5

ideal in the sense that they match the child’s desire to negotiate her/his own competence and control in certain situation types. For a full command of German or English intensifiers the child has to integrate the discourse functions of these expressions with their morphosyntactic and semantic properties. While differences in the morphosyntactic complexity of intensifiers will no doubt play a role in the process of their acquisition, the general development of the morphological and syntactical system of the two languages cannot be a part of the present study. The discussion of the morphosyntactic properties of intensifiers will therefore focus on aspects that are relevant within the system of intensifying expressions. Moreover, more formal approaches to the semantics of intensifiers will not be discussed in depth here as the question of how the formal semantic properties of intensifiers can be integrated into a theory of language acquisition is not a central issue in this approach.

2.1. Morphosyntactic properties Expressions like German selbst/selber and English x-self (my-/your-/him/her-/it-/one-self, our-/your-/them-selves) represent a universal kind of expression and can be shown to display very specific syntactic and semantic properties (König 2001). Typically, these expressions are not the only representatives of their kind, but a lexical field of expressions exists of which this member is least restricted in terms of syntactic and semantic flexibility and can be regarded as the core representative of the class. For German, König (2001) lists a number of related expressions, see (4a). A similar group of expressions can be found in English, see (4b). (4) a. eigen, leibhaftig, persönlich, höchstpersönlich, von selbst, von sich aus, an sich, etc. b. personally, by x-self, own, of one’s own accord It will be shown later in this chapter that German selbst/selber and English x-self are not only the core members of the lexical field of intensifiers, but also central with regard to a subclass of adverbial exclusive expressions. These expressions, amongst them von selbst and by x-self, are related to the adverbial exclusive use type of intensifiers and interact with the agentive properties of the referent of the subject noun phrase. Syntactically, intensifiers can be adjoined both to noun phrases or verb phrases. Depending on which is the case, it is possible to distinguish

6

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

between an adnominal use type, see (5), and an adverbial use type, see (6), use type. (5) Dumbledore himself is seeing to Harry Potter’s safety. (6) Harry Potter cleaned his Thunderbolt himself. Some tests can be used to show that a noun phrase or verb phrase form a larger constituent together with the intensifier. For the adnominal use type it can be shown that if adjoined to the noun phrase, intensifiers permutate together with that noun phrase (7) or can be coordinated with other noun phrases (8). Similar tests are available for the adverbial use type. (7) The one who is seeing to Harry Potter’s safety is Dumbledore himself. (8) Professor McGonagall and Dumbledore himself are seeing to Harry Potter’s safety.2 Some languages, including German and English, further distinguish the adverbial use into an adverbial inclusive (9) and an adverbial exclusive (10) use type. (9) Harry knows what it means to be an orphan, he has lost his parents himself. (10) Harry knows that he can’t be helped by Ron and Hermione, … …he has to face Lord Voldemort himself. While the inclusive use type can be paraphrazed by ‘too’ or ‘also’, the exclusive use type can be paraphrazed by ‘without help/without assistance’ or ‘alone’. It will be illustrated later in this chapter that, to a certain extent, the two adverbial use types correlate complementarily with the telicity or aktionsart of the encoded event and definiteness. That there are plenty of examples that are ambiguous between an adverbial exclusive and an adverbial inclusive reading can be interpreted as evidence for the fact that the difference between the two adverbial use types is not merely an effect of the syntactic differences, see (11) and (12). (11) You are not the only one who has seen Hagrid, I have seen him myself. (12) I haven’t been told that Hagrid is a giant, I have seen him myself.

Intensifiers from a cross-linguistic perspective

7

While the context in (11) calls for an inclusive reading of myself, the context provided in (12) only allows an exclusive reading of myself in the otherwise identical phrase I have seen him myself. Morphologically, intensifiers may agree in person, number, case and gender with the noun phrase they interact with. In the examples given in Table 1, German uses an invariant form in all positions of the paradigm. English makes person and number distinctions, and in the third person singular also gender distinctions. Table 1. Intensifiers in two different languages singular

plural

1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd

German selbst/selber selbst/selber selbst/selber selbst/selber selbst/selber selbst/selber

1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd

English myself yourself himself, herself, itself, oneself ourselves yourselves theirselves

If intensifiers are used adnominally, intensifiers can be adjoined to any noun phrase. In their adverbial use intensifiers usually interact only with the subject noun phrase which is typically human in the case of inclusive intensifiers and an agentive subject in the case of exclusive intensifiers.

2.2. Use types and contexts of occurrence The central interest of this study is what children’s form-function pairings look like when they first enter the system of intensifiers as a means to structure their discourse. For this purpose, the basic outlines of the meaning of intensifiers together with the contexts in which they occur will be descibed in the following. The semantic properties of intensifiers manifest in recurrent and specific types of contexts. While it can be predicted that not all contexts that can be identified for the use of adnominal and adverbial intensifiers are relevant for a young language learning child, it will be illustrated that especially those contexts in which adverbial exclusive intensifiers and related expressions tend to occur are of central interest in child discourse. The two basic facts of meaning that the three types of intensifiers subsume are, first, that they evoke alternatives to the referent of the noun phrase they interact with. Second, they structure the set of referents into a

8

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

center-periphery scenario (König 2001). For each of the three uses of intensifiers different manifestations of the structuring of entities in terms of center and periphery exist. In the following, these recurrent contexts together with the kind of referents that are evoked by adnominal, adverbial exclusive and adverbial inclusive intensifiers will be illustrated. It will be shown that in the case of adnominal intensifiers, the recurrent contexts within which the expressions are used are unlikely to be relevant in a young child’s discourse. Adverbial exclusive intensifiers and related expressions on the other hand present the child with semantic means to negotiate his/her involvement in a specific action. Adverbial inclusive intensifiers occur in very complex contextual conditions which makes it functionally and meaning-wise very implausibe that they should be used in early stages of language acquisition. As was already mentioned above, the two most basic semantic facts about intensifiers are that they evoke alternative referents and structure the set of referents in terms of center and periphery. For the adnominal use of intensifiers the kind of referent of the noun phrase the intensifier interacts with and the evoked alternative referents are not restricted regarding thematic roles. All kinds of animate (13) and inanimate (14) referents of both subject and object noun phrases are possible candidates for the interaction with an intensifier. This is an interesting point to note as there are some restrictions on the kind of referent of the subject noun phrase for the use of exclusive intensifiers and even more for the use of inclusive intensifiers. (13) a. Everybody enjoyed the class. The teacher himself thought it was awful. b. He didn’t want to talk to the whole class, but to the teacher himself. (14) a. The castles in Potsdam are beautiful; Potsdam itself is even nicer. b. She loved the park of Sanssouci and especially the castle itself. 2.2.1. Adnominal intensifiers In following Baker (1995), König (2001) lists four different manifestations of how adnominal intensifiers structure a referent and the evoked alternative referents in terms of center and periphery. Although Baker presents a somewhat different analysis of adnominal intensifiers and treats them as markers of discourse prominence,3 the important point to note is

Intensifiers from a cross-linguistic perspective

9

that Baker’s four different manifestations of adnominal intensifiers can also be regarded as the four typical contexts in which they tend to occur. The centrality of referent X in relation to more peripheral referents Y is achieved on the basis of social-hierarchical, situational, relational or logophoric contexts, see (15). In these contexts, adnominal intensifiers relate the referent X to the evoked referents Y such that... (15)

a. b. c. d.

...X has a higher rank than Y in a real-world hierarchy; ...X is more important than Y in a specific situation; ...Y is identified relative to X (e.g. kinship, part-whole); ...X is the subject of consciousness, centre of observation, (logophoricity).

Examples illustrating these four contexts are given below, see (16). The figure Lord Voldemort is conceived as high-ranking, see (16a), the team manager Oliver Wood is of central importance in the game of Quidditch, see (16b). In (16c) Harry Potter is identified in relation to his parents and in (16d) he is the subject of consciousness. (16)

a. Lord Voldemeort himself killed Mr Potter. b. Oliver Wood’s team was in low spirits before the match, … …Oliver Wood himself was sure that they were going to win. c. Harry Potter’s parents were killed in the attack; Harry himself survived. d. Harry couldn’t think of anything to comfort him; … …he knew Neville, like himself was dreading the dawn.4

2.2.2. Adverbial exclusive intensifiers In comparison to adnominal intensifiers, the referents that adverbial exclusive intensifiers can interact with are more restricted. While sentences like (17) and (18) evoke alternative referents just as adnominal intensifiers do, sentences become odd or semantically impossible if exclusive x-self is in association with a referent that is not human, see (19), or inanimate, see (20). (17) (18) (19)

At an age of 87, Mrs. Dylan still managed her household herself. Sue changed the bike’s tire herself. The seaweed crossed the bay ?itselfadv. excl.

10

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

(20) The car crossed the bridge *itselfadv. excl. Exclusive adverbial intensifiers relate to agents and evoke other agents as possible alternatives with regard to the action described by the predicate. Contextual alternatives that are evoked by a sentence like (17) involve alternative agents that might either help Mrs. Dylan with her household or manage it for her. Possible contextual alternatives for (18) are similar in that Sue could either have someone help her change the tire or have someone change the tire for her. The sentence given in (19) is odd unless the seaweed is seen as a personified creature. An inanimate referent in (20) is an imposssible referent of the subject noun phrase when interacting with the adverbial exclusive intensifier itself. It will be shown later in this chapter that given the different semantics of the expression the same sentences with by itself are possible sentences in English. The contexts which can be identified for the use of adverbial exclusive intensifiers can be characterized as anti-assistive, anti-delegative, or antiinstrumental.5,6 Examples illustrating the three contexts are given below. (21) a. Last week his brother had helped him, this week… …Jan mowed the lawn himself. b. Last week he had asked his brother, this week… …Jan mowed the lawn himself. c. His dishwasher broke down yesterday, so… …Peter had to do the dishes himself. In (21a), himself interacts with the agent Jan and relates to alternative contexts in which Jan received help in mowing the lawn. In the given example, one possible assistive agent, Jan’s brother, is named, but generally the sentence with himself can also relate to contexts with other helping agents. The context given in (21b) shows that the identical sentence can also relate to contexts in which the whole task was delegated by Jan to an alternative agent.7 In the example in (21c) the alternative referent named, the dishwasher, is an inanimate entity that contrasts with the agentive subject Peter. This kind of use of an adverbial exclusive intensifier is restricted to contexts in which an inanimate entity can act in the same way as an agent. The example below illustrates this restriction in that no agent can act in the same way as the inanimate entity tree. (22) The old apple tree was finally dying, so …*Peter had to grow the apples himself.

Intensifiers from a cross-linguistic perspective

11

2.2.3. Age effect The difference between the use of an adverbial exclusive intensifier that relates to anti-assistive contexts and the use of the same expression relating to anti-delegative contexts might seem marginal at first sight. It will be demonstrated in the results section that for a language-learning child the contrast between an agent who helps the child in a certain activity versus an alternative agent who completes the whole action without the involvement of the child is relevant in terms of the emerging independent agency of the child. Along these lines it is an important point to mention that, concerning the interpretation of sentences with an adverbial exclusive intensifier together with the contextual alternatives the expression relates to, an age effect can be observed. In the examples listed below, the age of the referent of the subject noun phrase is crucial information concerning the semantic contribution that the adverbial exclusive intensifier herself makes to the meaning of a sentence. (23) Sue is 40 years old and takes care of her neighbor’s dog, a. ...she washes the dog herself. b. ...she takes him for a walk herself. c. ...she feeds him herself. (24) Sue is 4 years old and takes care of her neighbor’s dog, a. ...she washes the dog herself. b. ...she takes him for a walk herself. c. ...she feeds him herself. If we compare the semantic effect of the use of herself in (23a-c) to that in (24a-c), herself in the first sentences enables a reading of the sort that Sue either did not receive assistance in the actions described or did not delegate them. If this time the adult Sue did everything herself, last time she may have done it together with her husband or her husband may have done it for her. The sentences in (24) are similar in that herself relates to contexts in which the child Sue was helped by an adult or the like to wash and feed the dog and take him for a walk, or the expression relates to alternative contexts in which the whole task was carried out by an adult. While the contexts that herself relates to in (23) and (24) are structured in fairly parallel ways, it does not seem adequate to talk about an antidelegative context in cases in which the adverbial exclusive intensifier xself interacts with a noun phrase that has a child as referent. It does not

12

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

seem plausible to interpret herself in (24a-c) as relating to an alternative context in which Sue had an adult do the tasks. Rather it seems that a context in which an adult washed and fed the dog and took him for a walk instead of Sue seems more likely. The important parallel to anti-delegative contexts is that the adverbial exclusive expression relates to alternative contexts in which the whole action was carried out by an alternative agent. In anti-assistive contexts the use of an adverbial exclusive intensifier rules out that the referent of the subject noun phrase and the alternative referents act together. These contexts can be found both in typically adult-oriented and typically child-oriented discourse. In anti-delegative contexts, the use of an adverbial exclusive intensifier rules out that the referent of the subject noun phrase has an alternative referent carry out the action. In this fashion, these contexts will be expected to be less frequent in child discourse. However, it seems to make sense to expect scenarios in child-oriented discourse in which an adverbial exclusive intensifier is used to rule out the possibilitiy that an alternative agent carry out a certain action instead of the child. As these contexts cannot justifiably be called anti-delegative, such contexts will be called autonomous in the present study to highlight the fact that the child acts without any interference of adults. For the analysis of the child data in the present study, these two contexts for the adverbial exclusive use of German selbst/selber and English x-self will be regarded as relevant. Anti-assistive and autonomous contexts are expected to occur frequently in child discourse and should be ideal for the emerging use of adverbial exclusive expressions. 2.2.4. Implied competence The last aspect to be mentioned regarding the occurrence of adverbial exclusive intensifiers in child-oriented versus adult-oriented speech is the difference in the assumed competence of the involved or implied referents. If the sentences in (23a-c) are interpreted within an anti-assistive context, they mean that the woman Sue was not helped. The sentences contain no statement about whether Sue is competent to carry out the action, it is assumed that this is the case. Sue is believed to be capable of washing, walking and feeding the dog and so are the alternative referents that are excluded. The same is true for the interpretation of (23a-c) within an antidelegative context. In (24a-c) on the other hand, the fact that children need to learn almost all actions that adults are capable of is highly relevant. In both an anti-assistive and an autonomous context there is an assumed

Intensifiers from a cross-linguistic perspective

13

asymmetry concerning the competence of the child and the alternative referent. In both cases the achievement of the child is a central issue. In child-oriented speech the adverbial exclusive intensifier x-self can be used to highlight the fact that the child is becoming increasingly independent. Depending on whether the context is anti-assistive or autonomous, the child’s own activity is contrasted with actions in which s/he is either helped or which are being carried out for her/him. A similar effect can also be observed concerning the use of the German expression allein and English by x-self. It will be shown later in this chapter that in sentences with these expressions, inferences about the referents’ skills are similar to the ones described above. 2.2.5. Adverbial inclusive intensifiers The last type of use to be discussed is the adverbial inclusive use of intensifiers. The major difference to both the adnominal and the adverbial exclusive use is that the contexts in which these expressions occur are very complex. While the meaning of adverbial inclusive intensifiers can well be paraphrased by ‘also’ or ‘too’, there is little to be gained by the use of inclusive intensifiers instead of these expressions in the discourse and language of a young child. Another difference to the adnominal and exclusive use is that the referents of the noun phrases with which adverbial inclusive intensifiers can interact are even more restricted as they are in the majority of cases confined to interacting with human referents. The three major contexts in which adverbial inclusive intensifiers are found are interaction, empathy and reproaches (cf. Siemund 1999): (25) A: B: (26) A: B: (27) A: B:

Can I have an aspirin? I have a headache. Sorry, I have only one tablet and I have a headache myself. Liv’s sister drives me mad. I know, I have had her as a visitor myself. Lennard is a scumbag. How can you dislike him when you are an artist yourself?

The main effect of the use of an adverbial inclusive intensifier in (25)(27) is that the referent of the subject noun phrase is characterized as equally central regarding some alternative referent. In all three examples there is an assumed asymmetry that is rejected by the sentence with the inclusive intensifier. Siemund (2000) has shown that in many cases the

14

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

assumed asymmetry is rooted in the referents’ beliefs and desires. In (25), A believes that B can give A an aspirin, possibly assuming that B has plenty. This is not the case as B only possesses one tablet and also suffers from a headache. In (26), A starts to tell B something, assuming that B does not know. In the answer B both expresses empathy and keeps A from telling the story. In (27), B is upset about A’s statement and rejects his reaction, which in B’s opinion should be the opposite. Adverbial inclusive intensifiers very often interact with propositions of the kind y believes that…, y wants that… with y being the other referent. All of the three examples involve inferred information about a referent’s beliefs and desires. While in the first two examples the different beliefs have an impact on the interaction, the last example is somewhat different in that no interaction is directly dependent on B’s reaction. Inclusive intensifiers can be used to make a statement about a referent’s inclusion in a certain state of affairs or activity. For the language-learning child situations in which s/he wants to be included are highly relevant. Much of the child’s development in terms of learning how to act as an independent agent is dependent on participating or claiming participation in activities. As simple inclusion can also be achieved by the use of additive particles such as English too, see (28a), or German auch, see (29a), the question remains why a child should use an inclusive intensifier in such cases. (28) a. b. (29) a. b.

I want some cookies too. I want some cookies myself. Ich möchte auch Kekse. Ich möchte selber Kekse.

While both sentences in (28) and (29) presuppose that there is at least one other referent who is in identical relation to the predicate as the referent of the pronoun I, the use of myself instead of too furthermore induces an ordering of the referents with the effect that an asymmetry is negated and the referents under consideration are regarded as equally central. A sentence like (28b) calls for a context in which the referent of the subject noun phrase I who has, for instance, bought some cookies is identified in relation to another referent who has been eating them. The rejected asymmetry in (28b) is then between the referent who bought the cookies and the referent who is eating them. The effect of too in (28a) on the other

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

15

hand simply includes the referent in the activity of cookie-eating and lacks any inferences about the referents ordering or centrality. The same statement can be made about the use of German auch and selber in (29). The semantic implications of sentences with adverbial inclusive intensifiers as listed above illustrate that it seems difficult and may in many cases be irrelevant for young children to relate an adverbial inclusive intensifier to the relevant context. 2.2.6. Summary Intensifiers in both German and English can be differentiated according to three use types. For each of the three use types recurrent contexts can be identified. It was argued that the four contexts within which adnominal intensifiers tend to occur are not necessarily expected to be relevant in young children’s discourse. On the other hand, two contexts could be identified that are expected to play a role in the acquisition of the adverbial exclusive use type: the anti-assistive context and the autonomous context. For the adverbial inclusive use of intensifiers it was shown that the child has to be able to relate the expression to very complex contexts and, in many cases, has to have special knowledge about other referent’s beliefs and desires. Although this type of intensifier relates to children’s attempts at participating in certain events and activities, for reasons stated above a full command of this expression is not expected in early stages of language acquisition. 3. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns It has already been mentioned earlier in this chapter that there is a typological distinction between languages that display a formal identity of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns and languages that display a formal distinctness. This differentiation correlates with a number of other distinctions found in languages (König 2001). For the present analysis two such correlations are regarded as relevant for the language-learning child. These concern the non-referential use of reflexives and the occurrence of intensifiers with/without nominal versus pronominal heads. The following paragraphs will give a short insight into these parameters of variation as the morphosyntactic features of English x-self expressions are believed to lead to very specific analytic mistakes in the acquisition process which cannot

16

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

be observed in German acquisition data. It has been recognized in studies dealing both with production data (e.g. Thomas 1994) and experimental data (e.g. McDaniel et al. 1990) that English children go through a phase in language development in which they produce and accept structures with a form of x-self in subject position. German children on the other hand use neither the intensifier nor a form of the reflexive pronoun in subject position. Both Thomas (1994) and McDaniel et al. (1990) argue that the English children’s behavior is due to a misinterpretation of the referential properties of reflexives in early stages of language acquisition. The fact that children as old as 5;0 and older still accept x-self in subject position is explained by McDaniel et al. by the fact that these children are in the process of acquiring the adnominal use of the English intensifier and allow it to occur without a preceding head. Before a more detailed discussion of these two claims is given in chapter 2, the following paragraphs will show that the typological types to which the German and the English language belong provide structural motivation for both the claim that x-self in subject position is a non-target use of a reflexive pronoun and that it is a non-target use of an intensifier. For German the non-occurrence of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns in subject position can also be shown to be structurally motivated.

3.1. Formal identity versus formal distinctness Many European languages, among them Slavic languages such as Slovak or Russian, Germanic languages such as German (Gast to appear), Romance languages such as French and Italian, and also many Bantu languages make a clear formal distinction between intensifiers and reflexive pronouns (cf. König 2001). The relevant paradigm for German is given in Table 2. Table 2. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns in German German

intensifiers SG 1st selbst/selber selbst/selber 2nd selbst/selber 3rd

PL selbst/selber selbst/selber selbst/selber

reflexive pronouns SG PL 1st mich/mir uns dich/dir euch 2nd sich sich 3rd

While German uses an invariant form as an intensifier across all relevant morphosyntactic categories, the reflexive pronoun is marked for person and number and, in first and second person singular, also for case.

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

17

Other European languages like Finno-Ugric with Estonian or Finnish, Turkic languages like Turkish and also English make no such formal distinction of the two kinds of expressions. According to König (2001) there is reason to believe that the formal identity of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns is the predominant pattern among the world’s languages. The distinction of the expressions in these languages is impossible only by judging their formal characteristics, but is a matter of their syntactic distribution. While intensifiers occur in adjunct positions, reflexive pronouns are only found in argument positions. English intensifiers and reflexive pronouns are marked for person, number and gender, see Table 3. Table 3. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns in English intensifiers SG myself 1st yourself 2nd himself 3rd herself itself oneself

PL ourselves yourselves themselves

reflexive pronouns SG 1st myself yourself 2nd himself 3rd herself itself oneself

PL ourselves yourselves themselves

English intensifiers and reflexive pronouns are morphologically complex, they consist of a genitive determiner and the nominal element self. The third person forms himself and themselves are an exception to this and combine the objective pronouns him and them with nominal self. As will be discussed in more detail below, the transparency of the English expressions’ morphology may have an impact on the process of their acquisition. For the children acquiring German as their first language no such effect can be expected. For the English child there is little evidence against an analysis of English x-self in (30a) parallel to other noun phrases, see (30b). (30) a. Don’t hurt yourself! b. Don’t hurt your leg! In the present study, child language data of each of the two patterns described above will be analyzed. It is expected that the typological difference will surface in the paths the children follow when acquiring intensive expressions in German and English. The input that English

18

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

children receive regarding intensifiers and reflexive pronouns differs from that of children acquiring German as their first language in so far as English children hear an identical form be used both as a referential and as a nonreferential expression. The German children hear referential and nonreferential uses of mich/dich/sich etc., but the intensifier and the reflexive pronoun are distinct.

3.2. Non-referential use of reflexives A typological feature correlating with the pattern of either formal identity or formal distinctness of intensive and reflexive expressions in a given language is the non-referential use of reflexives. In addition to their referential use, reflexive pronouns are also used as aspectual markers or markers of intransitivity in languages that use clearly distinct expressions for intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. The examples from Slovak illustrate some of the most frequent non-referential uses of reflexives, see (31):8 (31) a. Pavol si zobral život. referential Paul REFL.DAT take.PAST life.ACC.SG ‘Paul killed himself’. b. Pavol sa postavil. bodily motion Paul REFL.ACC getup.PAST ‘Paul got up’. c. Situácia sa zhoršila. anti-causative situation.NOM.SG REFL.ACC detoriorate.PAST ‘The situation deteriorated’. d. Tu sa žúije pohodlne. facilitative here REFL.ACC live.3.SG comfortably ‘One lives here comfortably’. e. Všetok þaj sa vypil. passive all tea.NOM.SG REFL.ACC drink.PAST ‘All the tea was drunk’. f. Tu sa hovorí po slovensky. impersonal here REFL.ACC speak.PART after Slovak ‘Slovak is spoken here’. g. Chce sa mi spat’. aspectual it.wants REFL.ACC me sleep ‘I would like to go to sleep’.

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

19

König (2001) proposes an implicational scale that orders the types of non-referential uses of reflexives to the effect that if a language uses a reflexive in a construction at some point to the right of the scale, it will also use the reflexive in all constructions that can be found higher up on the scale, see (32): (32)

referential > bodily motion > anti-causative > facilitative > passive > impersonal > aspectual

German translations involving a reflexive include the first four constructions of the scale but no passive, impersonal or aspectual uses, see (33). (33) a. Paul hat sich umgebracht. Paul have REFL.3SG kill.PART ‘Paul killed himself’. b. Paul hat sich erhoben. Paul have REFL.3SG getup.PART ‘Paul got up’. c. Die Situation hat sich verschlechtert. the situation have REFL.3SG detoriorate ‘The situation detoriorated’. d. Es lebt sich gut hier. it live.3SG REFL.3SG well here ‘One lives here comfortably’.

referential

bodily motion

anti-causative

facilitative

The fact that German allows a variety of non-referential uses of the reflexive is an important point to note regarding the fact that German children neither produce intensifiers nor reflexive pronouns in subject position. In contrast to the English children, they do not receive information that the form of the intensifier can also be used referentially, but receive information that the reflexive can also be used non-referentially. In languages which lack a clear distinction between intensifiers and reflexives, intensifiers are allowed to occur in argument positions without preceding head. In English such constructions are possible in argument positions other than the subject position, see (34).9 No comparable structures are possible in German. (34) Ian wandered about alone as everybody but himself seemed to be asleep.

20

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

The main point that is of interest with regard to the English acquisition data is that in the sentence in (34), an x-self expression can be used interchangeably with a personal pronoun and, therefore, referentially. For the language-learning child the use of x-self as demonstrated in (34) combines characteristics of reflexive anaphors with those of intensifiers. On the one hand, the expression has clear referential properties, a fact reflected in the discussion of cases of ‘long-distance binding’ in languages like English, Mandarin, Japanese, or Icelandic. The Mandarin example (35) below illustrates that the self-expression zìjí can be used to signal coreference both within a local and within a non-local domain (cf. Chomsky 1981, 1986): (35) ZhƗngsƗn rènwei LƯsì hèn zìjƯ.10 Zhangsan think Lisi hate SELF ‘Zhangsani thinks Lisij hates himselfj/himi’. On the other hand, the use of x-self in (34) exhibits specific characteristics of intensifiers in that the expression fulfills a perspectivizing function in terms of center and periphery: the referent of the subject noun phrase, Ian, is characterized as central and therefore the only possible referent for non-local himself.11 For the present analysis it is important to keep in mind that the English language has an expression that functions as reflexive anaphor, as logophor and as intensifier and, therefore, does not provide the child with unambiguous syntactical cues regarding the referentiality of instances of x-self.

3.3. Reflexives in subject position A last point to be mentioned is that languages without a formal distinction of reflexive pronouns and intensifiers quite frequently allow intensifiers in subject position without accompanying pronominal heads, see (36) for Turkish and Latin.12 (36) a. Kendisi operaya gitti. SELF.3.SG opera.DAT go.PAST ‘He himself went to the opera’. b. Ipse dixit. SELF say.PAST.3.SG ‘He himself (=Aristotle) said it’.

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

21

Although English has no comparable structure in adult systems (but Irish English), it has already been mentioned that in child language x-self in subject position without an accompanying additional referential element is a common and well-documented structure. The position that children’s non-target language systems might encode similar concepts as the varying structures that can be observed in related language types will be discussed in more detail in chapter 3.

3.4. Summary With regard to the relation of intensifiers to reflexive pronouns in both German and English, the following aspects will be assumed to be of importance in explaining why children acquiring the two languages choose a structural pattern in certain stages of language development. First, German and English are representative of two variants found in the languages of the world; while German uses formally distinct expressions for intensive and reflexive constructions, English uses an invariant form. It follows from this that in English the same expression that is used as an intensifier is also used referentially. In German a somewhat different situation exists in that the same expression that is used as a reflexive pronoun can also be used non-referentially. It was already mentioned above and will be discussed in more detail below that these structural differences may serve as an explanation for the fact that, contrary to children learning German as their first language, children acquiring English pass through a phase in which they produce and accept structures with an intensive/reflexive expression in subject position. Additional structural evidence for the children’s acceptance of such structures comes from the fact that in argument positions other than the subject position, x-self can occur without a head for perspectivizing purposes which is impossible in German. The fact that in English pronouns cannot be combined with intensifiers in argument positions other than the subject position and pronouns and x-self can alternate in sentences discussed above might lead the child to expect that this is also the case in subject position, or more generally speaking, that both personal pronouns and x-self have invariant referential properties. It will be argued that an erroneous analysis of the referential properties of x-self as can be triggered by the expressions’ morphological and syntactical properties should lead the children to produce a whole array of non-target structures. The lack of appearance of some of these non-target structures will be taken as evidence for the

22

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

position that not only analytical processes or processes of functional reanalysis can be made responsible for the children’s production of nontarget structures. To some degree the structural variability of a language type may surface in child language in the same way as it does in the adult systems. For the present study it is important to be aware of the fact that while not much difference can be found in the discourse functions of intensive and reflexive expressions in the two languages, the languagelearning child is confronted with language-specific information regarding the morphosyntactic properties of the expressions. Children’s development towards increasingly independent agents can be regarded as a universal aspect of socialization. In this respect not much difference is expected with regard to the child’s desire to find means in the target language with which the child’s involvement in activities can be negotiated. Regarding possible differences in the path of acquisition on the other hand, the typological or structural differences of the two languages are expected to be documented in the children’s early systems. 4. Agent-sensitive expressions In this section attention will be focused on the German and English targetsystems which provide not only nominative but also non-nominative means to express agency. While much has been said about how children deal with the nominative encoding of agency using nominal and pronominal arguments (e.g. Budwig 1989, 1995; Deutsch and Budwig 1983), less is known about the status of expressions such as selbst/selber and x-self which represent adjuncts rather than arguments. In linguistic theory a thorough account of intensifiers is provided (e.g. Edmondson and Plank 1978; König 1991, 2001; Baker 1995; Siemund 2000). How these expressions interact with related expressions such as allein, von selbst, by x-self, on one’s own, or of one’s own accord on the other hand is less wellknown. The following analysis will take König’s (2001) and Siemund’s (2000) approach to the semantics of intensifiers as a starting point from which an attempt will be made at describing the semantic contribution of expressions related to the adverbial exclusive use of intensifiers. It will be shown that together with the adverbial exclusive use of German selber/selbst and English x-self, expressions such as allein, von selbst, by xself, on one’s own, and of one’s own accord interact with the different

Agent-sensitive expressions

23

properties of an agentive subject. They will therefore be referred to as agent-sensitive expressions. An analysis of the semantic contributions that agent-sensitive expressions can make to the meaning of a sentence seems a necessary basis for the study of children’s acquisition of these expressions. What are the semantic properties that define their early systems when using non-nominative ways of expressing agency? The comparison of the German and the English system will reveal that while the contexts that the above expressions relate to are similar, the languages differ with regard to which form can serve which function and with regard to the morphosyntactic properties of the expressions. Apart from a large semantic overlap of the expressions German selbst/selber and English x-self there are no further one-to-one correspondences. This raises interesting questions concerning the developmental paths that the children acquiring either German or English can follow. The child will need to integrate the semantics of the expressions with their morphosyntactic properties and, given the differences between the German and the English system, it is expected that not only individual differences within the two systems but also systematic differences between the systems to be acquired will occur. This section aims at creating a basis for explaining why a child begins to use a form x rather than a form y or why the particular semantic contribution that a construction can make is preferred over that of a different construction. It will be illustrated in the following that compared to German von selbst/von allein and English by x-self, the German expressions von sich aus/aus eigenem Antrieb and English of one’s own accord relate to specific contexts which may not be frequent in child-oriented discourse. They were included in this section as the children will integrate these expressions into their systems eventually, and it is of theoretical interest which expressions and, thereby, which properties are relevant in the children’s earlier systems. In the following section a description of the basic notions is given regarding the contexts of occurrence and the semantic contribution that the expressions allein, von selbst/von allein, by x-self, on one’s own and of one’s own accord can make to the meaning of a sentence. It will be shown that all expressions discussed in this section interact with the properties of an agentive subject and, thereby, both with the degree of transitivity encoded and with the notions of volitionality and causativity.

24

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

4.1. Basic notions The use of selbst/selber by the German children and x-self by the English children is by far not the only possibility that the two languages provide in order to express an adverbial exclusive meaning. If children wish to express that they as opposed to some other participant of their discourse want to carry out a certain activity, or if they wish to comment on an activity that they have carried out without the help or assistance of an adult, several expressions are at the children’s disposal. Children can, for instance, use German allein (37) or English by x-self (38). (37) Ich habe meine Schuhe allein angezogen. I have.1SG my shoePL alone put.on.PART ‘I put on my shoes by myself’. (38) I put on my shoes by myself. It will be illustrated in the following section that a group of expressions exists in both German and English and most probably in a wide variety of other languages that function in a way similar to the exclusive use of the core member of the group of intensifiers. All of these expressions make similar semantic contributions to the meaning of a sentence, function in a syntactically similar way and interact with the agentive properties of the subject noun phrase. Although a prototypical agent in the sense of Dowty (1991) is the most likely candidate for the subject in sentences such as (37) and (38), sentences with inanimate non-agentive subjects are also common, see (39a) and (40a). It will be argued here that the meaning of such sentences is achieved by a specific way of interaction of the expressions von selbst/von allein and by itself with the inanimate subject noun phrase in a way that compared to identical sentences without these expressions, see (39b) and (40b), the cause for the process is unknown. (39) a. Die Tür ist von selbst/von allein zugefallen. the door be.3SG by.itself close.PART ‘The door closed by itself’. b. Die Tür ist zugefallen. the door be.3SG close.PART ‘The door closed’. (40) a. The door closed by itself. b. The door closed.

Agent-sensitive expressions

25

The English expressions x-self, by x-self, on one’s own, of one’s own accord and German expressions selbst/allein, von selbst/von allein, von sich aus, aus eigenem Antrieb can all be used adverbial exclusively. These expressions can interact with either the whole concept of an agent or with selected properties of an agentive subject. Depending on which properties are involved, the expressions display various degrees of specification. Parallel to adverbial inclusive and adnominal intensifiers, agent-sensitive expressions are sensitive to semantic parameters of transitivity which interact with the semantic contribution that the expressions make to the meaning of a sentence.13 Before the individual expressions are discussed in more detail, some examples will be given in order to illustrate what is meant by the term agent-sensitive and how the expressions clustering around the adverbial exclusive use of intensifiers are interrelated. For a start their semantic contribution to transitive sentences will be illustrated by some German and English examples. How the meaning of a sentence involving an agent-sensitive expression interacts with different degrees of transitivity is demonstrated in the sections on the individual expressions further below. 4.1.1. Selbst/allein versus von selbst/von allein Sentences (41) and (42) illustrate how selbst/allein in comparison to von selbst/von allein can interact with different aspects of an agentive subject noun phrase. (41) a. Jan hat den Garten selbst/allein umgegraben. ‚Jan dug up the garden himself/by himself’. b. Jans Bruder hat Jan nicht geholfen, den Garten umzugraben. ‘Jan’s brother did not help him to do it’. c. Jans Bruder hat den Garten nicht für Jan umgegraben. ‘Jan’s brother did not dig up the garden for him’. *d. Jans Bruder hat ihm nicht gesagt, dass er es tun soll. ‘Jan’s brother did not tell Jan to dig up the garden’. (42) a. Jan hat den Garten von selbst/von allein umgegraben. ‘Jan dug up the garden of his own accord’. *b. Jans Bruder hat Jan nicht geholfen, den Garten umzugraben. ‘Jan’s brother did not help him to do it’. *c. Jans Bruder hat den Garten nicht für Jan umgegraben. ‚Jan’s brother did not dig up the garden for him’.

26

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

d. Jans Bruder hat ihm nicht gesagt, dass er es tun soll. ‚Jan’s brother did not tell Jan to dig up the garden’. Roughly speaking, sentence (41a) states that nobody but Jan dug up the garden or that nobody helped him do it and sentence (42a) states that it was Jan’s own idea to dig up the garden. The contexts given in (41b) and (41c) illustrate the two relations ‘anti-assistive’ and ‘anti-delegative’ (see above). If (41b) is an appropiate context for (41a), Jan did not receive help in digging up the garden; if (41a) is embedded in a context like (41c) Jan did not successfully delegate someone to dig up the garden for him.14 Antiassistive and anti-delegative contexts are not compatible with the expressions von selbst/von allein, see (42b) and (42c). These expressions relate to contextual alternatives in which an agent makes the agent named in the sentence act according to the predication, see (42d), and will be referred to as anti-causative. Likewise the expressions selbst/allein cannot relate to anti-causative contexts, see (41d). The major difference between the semantic contribution of selbst/allein in (41a) and von selbst/von allein in (42a) can be examined by a closer look at the relation of the alternative agents to the action that is performed by the subject referent. The alternative referents that the use of selbst/allein evokes in (41a) are relevant in terms of carrying out the same action that Jan is performing, namely digging up the garden. The alternative referents evoked by the use of von selbst/von allein, however, are not directly relevant considering the action that is carried out. Even if they participated in the completion of the action in terms of making Jan do it, Jan is still the one who digs up the garden. 4.1.2. Causative relations Causative relations like that in (42a) are a well-known phenomenon. Peter is performing one kind of action that results in Jan performing another kind of action. While the nature of what Peter did to Jan is left more or less unspecified in the example given above, it is also possible to create scenarios in which a more specified action is described that causes the agent Jan to dig up the garden, see (43). (43) a. Letztes Jahr musste Peter Jan fünfmal erinnern, ...dieses Jahr hat Jan den Garten von selbst15 umgegraben. ‘Last year Jan had to be reminded five times, …this year Jan dug up the garden of his own accord’.

Agent-sensitive expressions

27

b. Letztes Jahr musste Peter Jan drohen, ihm kein Geld zu geben, ...dieses Jahr hat Jan den Garten von selbst umgegraben. ‚Last year Peter threatened Jan, …this year Jan dug up the garden of his own accord’. c. Letztes Jahr hat Peter Jan geschlagen, ...dieses Jahr hat Jan den Garten von selbst umgegraben. ‚Last year Peter hit Jan, …this year Jan dug up the garden of his own accord’. d. Letztes Jahr musste das Unkraut erst einen Meter hoch werden, ...dieses Jahr hat Jan den Garten von selbst umgegraben. ‚Last year the weeds grew very high, …this year Jan dug up the garden of his own accord’. The examples suggest that von selbst/von allein do not exclude the possibility that the action was successfully delegated or carried out with assistance as selbst and allein do, but that the expressions exclude the possibility of an external cause like being reminded (43a), threatened (43b) or hit (43c) being identified as the reason for the action to take place. Sentence (43d) illustrates that it need not be the action of another agent that serves as an external cause, but that the cause can also be some other process. The expression von selbst in (43) relates to alternative causative contexts that are excluded as a possible cause for the agent Jan to carry out the action. The following paragraphs will briefly discuss two approaches that link the notion of causativity or causation to that of willfullness and/or volition in delineating the concept of agentivity.16 While many studies have successfully shown that children contrastively employ linguistic devices to refer to prototypical instances of agency or mark deviations thereof (e.g. Slobin 1985; Budwig 1989, 1990), the present study is interested in how children acquire linguistic means that interact with referents that already have an agentive status. In this respect, the notions of causation and volition are relevant in sentences in which an agent-sensitive expression relates to an anti-causative context. The interesting difference to studies generally dealing with the linguistic marking of agency is that children have to become aware of the fact that causation and volition cannot only be part of a larger cluster of properties that are characteristic of agentive referents, but that they can interact more specifically with a sentence’s predication if an agent-sensitive expression is present that relates to an anticausative context.

28

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

4.1.3. Compositionality of the AGENT proto-role The alternative scenarios evoked by selbst or allein contrast with the whole concept of an agentive subject. In sentences with von selbst/von allein on the other hand, the contextual alternatives contrast with only some aspects of an agentive subject. Dowty’s theory of thematic roles gives an account of the compositionality of two basic thematic proto-roles: that of an AGENT and that of a PATIENT. It will be used here to illustrate how German von selbst/von allein and English of one’s own accord can relate to alternative causes which are excluded. It will be shown that in the case of an animate agentive subject noun phrase this leads to the effect of asserting an internal cause for the process. Inanimate subjects or subjects with the semantic role of THEME are more complex in that an alternative cause is also denied, but the identification of an internal cause is impossible. An action can consist both of a cognitive process or a more concrete or bodily act.17 In sentences like Jan hat den Garten von selbst/von allein umgegraben (Jan dug up the garden of his own accord) the cognitive part of an action can be identified as the cause of the action by the use of such expressions as von selbst/von allein. Jan did not only carry out the motions necessary to complete the act, he also decided to do so. In contrast to the same sentence without an agent-sensitive expression Jan hat den Garten umgegraben (Jan dug up the garden), alternative referents are evoked who could have caused Jan to carry out the task. Jan’s wife or brother could have done something that resulted in Jan mowing the lawn. Dowty (1991) has shown that the thematic role of AGENT (and also that of PATIENT) is best described not in terms of a discrete category but as a prototypical concept. He lists four properties that he believes to be crucial for the concept AGENT, see (44).18 (44) a. volitional involvement in the event or state b. sentience (and/or perception) c. causing an event or change of state in another participant d. movement (relative to the position of another participant) These properties are defined in terms of being likely entailments of the predicate. The subject of a given sentence can be more or less prototypical depending on which of the properties are present. A thematic role such as AGENT is thus defined by such a set of shared entailments about the nominal in subject position of various predicates.

Agent-sensitive expressions

29

4.1.4. Von selbst/von allein and volition Regarding the sentences discussed here, the first of the properties Dowty lists is of special interest. The use of von selbst/von allein does not invoke an agent who features as an alternative regarding the completion of the task, but the use of these expressions invokes agents that function as alternative causers of the action to take place. In highly transitive sentences with a human agent such as Jan, see (45), it is generally assumed, but not explicitly stated, that Jan displays all of the properties (44a-d). (45)

Jan hat Peter geschlagen. ‘Jan hit Peter’.

Sentences such as (46) illustrate that contexts can be constructed in which one or more of the properties are missing regarding the referent Jan. (46) a. Am frühen Abend war Jan noch im Besitz all seiner Kräfte, ...da hat er Peter von selbst geschlagen. ‚Early in the evening, Jan was still in control of himself, …he then hit Peter of his own accord’. b. Nachdem er drei Ecstasy-Tabletten geschluckt hatte, war Jan noch bei Bewusstsein, konnte sich aber nicht mehr willentlich steuern, ...da hat er Peter *von selbst geschlagen. ‚After swallowing ecstasy, Peter was still conscious, but lost control over his movements, …he then hit Peter *of his own accord. c. Als Jan schon bewusstlos war, hat er sich noch einmal ruckartig bewegt, ...da hat er Peter *von selbst geschlagen. ‚After Jan had lost consciousness, he moved involuntarily, …he then hit Peter *of his own accord. d. Als Jan schon bewusstlos war, hat er sich noch ruckartig bewegt und ...da hat er wild *von selbst um sich geschlagen. ‚After Jan had lost consciousness, he suddenly moved, …he then kicked about *of his own accord’. In sentence (46a) all of the four properties listed above are present regarding the agent Jan, sentence (46b) is lacking the property of volition and sentence (46c) is lacking both the properties of volition and sentience. Sentence (46d) finally only displays the property of movement. The sentences show that only if the property of volition can be attributed to the

30

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

referent of the subject noun phrase can the agentive subject be linked up with the expressions von selbst/von allein or of one’s own accord. When the agent of a sentence lacks volition, the sentences in (46) become unacceptable if used together with von selbst/von allein or of one’s own accord. The interesting point to be noted about the sentences in (46) is that it seems unusual but not impossible to negate the property ‘volition’ considering an agentive subject. The use of von selbst/von allein or of one’s own accord, on the other hand, makes the absence of the property ‘volition’ semantically impossible and the sentences become odd. The four expressions rule out an external cause and assign the property ‘volition’ to the human referent of a subject noun phrase. A human agent can make a decision to carry out an action which implies that the action is both volitional and conscious. In contrast to selbst/selber and allein, the expressions von selbst/von allein are not agent-sensitive in that they interact with the whole concept of an agentive subject noun phrase, but in that they interact mainly with one property of an agentive subject noun phrase. In the sentences discussed here, the expressions von selbst/von allein highlight the property of volition. The discussion of the individual expressions will show that examples can be found where the referent of the subject noun phrase is clearly not a candidate for exerting volition. In many cases the subjects of sentences with these expressions are not agents. The important point to be made about von selbst/von allein is that the alternative causes which are invoked by the use of these expressions are relevant in terms of (not) initiating the action to happen. The difference of von selbst/von allein to the expressions selbst/selber and allein becomes especially clear if the respective sentences are negated. As Siemund (1997) has argued, the effect of negation as in (47) does not affect the truth conditions in terms of whether the action was carried out or not. Rather sentence (47) seems to express that the action was successfully delegated in parts or as a whole. (47) Jan hat den Garten nicht selbst/allein umgegraben. ‚Jan did not dig up the garden himself/by himself’. Another observation that Siemund makes is that the negation in sentences like (47) interacts with the subject noun phrase. Disregarding the possibility that allein can be interpreted as an adverb meaning alone, it follows from (47) that it was not (only) Jan who dug up the garden. While in (47) negation does not influence whether the action is executed or not,

Agent-sensitive expressions

31

but makes a statement about who did the digging, negation in (48) does not affect the fact that Jan carried out the action. (48) Jan hat den Garten nicht von selbst/von allein umgegraben. ‚Jan did not dig up the garden of his own accord’. 4.1.5. Causativity and volition In terms of alternative agents it follows from (48) that someone else made Jan dig up the garden, but it was still Jan who did it. The previous example illustrates that the notions of causation and willfullness play a substancial role in the sentence’s semantic analysis. While most attempts at the decomposition of words into a finite set of semantic primitives like the analysis of the verb kill into CAUSE TO BECOME NOT ALIVE have failed at some level (e.g. Katz 1966; Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976), causation is recognized as a crucial factor considering the relation of sentences like those in (49) and (50). (49) a. b. (50) a. b.

Peter closed the door. The door closed. Peter made Jan read a book. Jan read a book.

In (49a) and (50a) Peter is identified as the cause of an action to take place. In (49b) and (50b) the cause of the action is left unidentified. In contrast to inanimate referents as in (49b), Jackendoff (1993) points out that prototypical agents can act both intentionally and unintentionally. A sentence like (51) is therefore ambiguous between a reading in which John acted on purpose and a reading in which he did not act purposefully. (51) Jan rolled down the hill. (52) [CAUSE ([JOHN], [GO([JOHN], [DOWN THE HILL])])] If the action described in (51) is not the result of John’s willfulness, he rolls down the hill because he has stumbled or is pushed, much the same as a stone would be rolling down the hill. In the intentional reading, John rolls down the hill because he wishes to do so. Jackendoff (1976) has proposed a semantic representation like (52) for the intentional reading of (51). In his discussion of compositional event structures, Jackendoff (1993) has argued

32

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

that the CAUSE function may either have a [THING] or an [EVENT] as its first argument. In the examples given below, either the noun phrase Peter or the noun phrase Peter’s blowing bubbles represents the first argument of the formal representations given, see (53b) and (54b). Representations of the examples used in this section are given in (55)-(58). (53) a. Peter made us laugh. b. [Event CAUSE ([Thing PETER], [Event WE LAUGH])] (54) a. Peter’s blowing bubbles made us laugh. b. [Event CAUSE ([Event PETER BLOW BUBBLES], [Event WE LAUGH])] (55) a. Peter made Jan dig up the garden. b. [Event CAUSE ([Thing PETER], [Event JAN DIG])] (56) a. Peter’s threatening made Jan dig. b. [Event CAUSE ([Event PETER MAKE THREAT], [Event JAN DIG])] (57) a. Peter’s hitting Jan made Jan dig. b. [Event CAUSE ([Event PETER HIT JAN], [Event JAN DIG])] (58) a. The growth of the weeds made Jan dig. b. [Event CAUSE ([Event WEEDS GROW], [Event JAN DIG])] For a sentence like (59a), and parallel to (51) and the examples given above, it seems tempting to insert Jan as a first argument, see (59b). (59) a. Jan dug up the garden of his own accord. b. [CAUSE ([Jan], [Event JAN DIG]) As Jackendoff (1993) himself has pointed out, the problem with this kind of solution is that the intentional reading of (51) would be something like John rolled himself down the hill which entails the claim that the intransitive verb roll and other such verbs are lexically ambiguous. Thus (59b) would be the semantic repesentation of (59a) and an intentional reading of the sentence Jan dug up the garden. In an attempt to find a more elegant solution to this problem, Jackendoff (1993) presents a semantic representation of different kinds of events and actions in which he relates the notion of willfulness not generally to the notion of an actor or causation but describes willfulness as a possible feature of actions. Action sentences are analyzed into containing both an [EVENT] and an [ACTION] constituent. The modifier WILLFULL appears in the verb phrase and is not attached to the [ACTOR] in [ACTOR]-[ACTION] pairs. According to

Agent-sensitive expressions

33

Jackendoff, an analysis that attaches the marker WILLFULL to the [ACTION] constituent is to be preferred since syntactic expressions of willfullness are attached to the verb phrase and not the subject. In sentences like (60) expressions of willfullness like deliberately or on purpose are attached to the verb phrase of the sentence and not to the subject John. Note that at first glance sentences like (60) seem to have much the same meaning as the sentence in (61). (60) What John did was roll down the hill deliberately/on purpose/accidentally. (61) What John did was roll down the hill of his own accord. It could be argued that of one’s own accord is a manner adverb much in the same way as it could be argued that intensifiers belong to the word class of adverbs. While there are some arguments in favor of a categorization of the intensifiers selbst/selber and x-self as adverbs, the same objection that can be made against it (cf. Siemund 2000) holds true for a rejection of treating other agent-sensitive expressions such as English of one’s own accord and German von selbst/von allein as manner adverbs. Adverbial exclusive intensifiers evoke alternative referents which contrast with the referent of the subject noun phrase which is characterized as central. Agentsensitive expressions do the same in evoking a set of alternative causes that are characterized as peripheriphal with regard to the referent of the subject noun phrase. This feature is completely absent from expressions like deliberately, on purpose or accidentally. As the term ‘manner adverbs’ suggests, deliberately, on purpose and accidentally describe the manner in which the action was carried out by the referent Peter. The expressions do not interact further in any obvious way with actual or associated referents of the discourse in which they appear. Apart from this, Jackendoff’s analysis goes well with the observation made here, namely that expressions like von selbst/von allein and of one’s own accord are sensitive to whether an action is carried out willfully or not, and that the willfulnesss of an action is a conceptually independent entity that can be separated from the agent who completes the action in terms of the physical motions necessary. As was already illustrated above, it is not without difficulties that sentences with agent-sensitive expressions can be adapted to a formal representation. Despite this fact an attempt has been made to show that the expressions discussed here interact both with the notion of causativity and the willfullness of an agent. It is an interesting point to note that in his analysis, Jackendoff only permits AGENTS and THEMES to fill the

34

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

position of ACTOR in ACTOR-ACTION pairs. It is impossible to appreciate the implications of his theory in more depth here, but the next point to be discussed is how the expressions von selbst and von allein interact with subjects that are not AGENTS but THEMES. 4.1.6. Von selbst/von allein with inanimate referents The expressions von selbst/von allein and by x-self can also interact with inanimate subjects, see (62). (62) Das Buch ist von selbst/von allein vom Regal gefallen, ...niemand hat es heruntergeworfen. ‘The book fell of the shelf by itself, …nobody pushed it’. This raises the question how the semantic analysis offered above will fit such cases. While it seems unproblematic to construct anti-causative contexts for such sentences, the claim that the expressions assert an internal cause is highly problematic. How can an expression be said to highlight the property of volition of the referent of a subject noun phrase if this referent is inanimate? First of all note that the first claim can be argued for by providing a suitable context. In a sentence with an inanimate subject, von selbst and von allein function to rule out an external cause which is illustrated by the context given in (62). The same context is unsuitable for an identical sentence which is lacking the expression von selbst or von allein, see (63). (63) Das Buch ist vom Regal gefallen, ???...niemand hat es heruntergeworfen.19 The book fell of the shelf, … ???...nobody pushed it. Regarding the exclusion of an external cause, the interaction of von selbst and von allein with an inanimate referent resembles that with an animate referent. On the other hand, the question of whether the expressions also highlight the volitionality of the action must be negated. It is of course impossible to argue that a book fell off a shelf because it just decided to do so. However, many speakers claim about sentences like (62) that a supernatural force seems to be involved, thereby attributing some agentive properties to a referent like the book. While it is tempting to argue

Agent-sensitive expressions

35

that these speakers show some awareness of the semantic impact of von selbst and von allein with an animate subject, if pressed, most informants declare that the sentence in (62) means something like it is unclear what caused the book to fall down the shelf. An interesting point to note here is that the German expression wie von selbst relates even more readily to the notion of a supernatural force, see (64). (64) Das Buch ist wie von selbst vom Regal gefallen, ...als wäre es von Geisterhand geschoben worden. ‚The book fell of the shelf as if of its own accord, …as if pushed by a ghost’. One attempt at explaining the similar intuitions of German and English speakers concerning the meaning of a sentence like (62) can be made by examining the impact of the syntactic properties of the expression within the whole sentence. A possible hypothesis is that the quasi-agentive properties that seem to be associated with the inanimate subject in a sentence like (62) are due to the syntactic structure of the agent-sensitive expressions which for instance makes them similar to the by-phrase in passives. While all agent-sensitive expressions are adjuncts, selbst and allein differ from von selbst/von allein in that the latter two have the structure of prepositional phrases. Unlike most prepositional phrases, however, von selbst and von allein do not have a noun phrase as a complement, but the intensifier selbst and the adverb allein. The same is true for the corresponding expression English by itself, although it could be argued that itself represents a reflexive pronoun rather than an intensifier. Generally, by-phrases are not limited to a specific thematic role; they very often introduce the agent of an action in a sentence with a non-prototypical subject. In (65b) the by-phrase ‘von Peter’ introduces the agent which appears in subject position in (65a) and represents the agent of the action. (65) a. Peter rollt den Ball. ‘Peter is rolling the ball’. b. Der Ball wird (von Peter) gerollt. ‘The ball is being rolled by Peter’. (66) Der Ball ist von selbst gerollt. ‘The ball rolled by itself’.

36

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

The subject bears the thematic role of THEME in (65b) and is thus nonprototypical in nature. In (66) the prepositional phrase does not introduce a further argument, but is in association with the subject that is also nonprototypical bearing the thematic role of THEME. While in the passive sentence (65b) an agent is introduced by the by-phrase, the semantic effect of von selbst in (66) is somewhat similar in that many speakers’ intuitions are that the referent of the subject noun phrase the ball is somehow involved in the completion of the action. It is thus conceived as more agentive as in the identical sentence in which the expression von selbst is missing. The same is true for the English expression by itself in (67). (67) The door opened by itself. 4.1.7. Summary Agent-sensitive expressions can be differentiated into two groups. Either the expression used relates the referent of the subject noun phrase to contexts in which alternative referents carry out the relevant action, or the alternative contexts feature referents that are relevant in causing an action to happen. For the language-learning child scenarios of the latter sort (anticausative contexts) can be expected to become important at a later phase in development than expressions of the former sort (anti-assistive contexts and autonomous contexts). Regarded from a perspective of discourse function, it seems plausible to assume that before the child acquires linguistic means to express that his/her agency is not caused by an external agent, s/he will acquire means to express that s/he wants to carry out an action instead of someone else or without the interference of someone else. It can be expected that the children in the study develop their use of intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions mainly within anti-assistive and autonomous contexts.

4.2. Inner structure and overview of syntax English and German agent-sensitive expressions display various degrees of morphological and syntactic complexity. In English, all expressions are either morphologically or syntactically complex, expressions like by x-self are both. Since all English agent-sensitive expressions involve either x-self or a possessive pronoun, they all agree in person, number and gender with

Agent-sensitive expressions

37

the corresponding subject noun phrase. In German, some of the expressions are syntactically complex, but von sich aus is the only one that agrees in person and number with the corresponding subject noun phrase since it involves the pronouns mich/dich/sich/uns/euch. All of the agent-sensitive expressions listed here are stressed and bear the sentence accent, see (68) and (69). (68) Er hat den Kuchen SELBST/alLEIN gebacken. ‚He made the cake himSELF/by himSELF/on his OWN’. (69) Er hat den Kuchen von SELBST/von alLEIN/von SICH aus/ aus EIgenem ANtrieb gebacken. ‚He made the cake of his own acCORD’. Syntactically the expressions tend to appear behind the finite verb, which in English is most often sentence-final. There is a tendency to interpret sentences in which the intensifier selbst/selber or x-self appears behind the finite verb as adverbial inclusive. For the inclusive reading of (70) the whole statement made by the verb phrase is relevant. The sentence states that the speaker has also used a whole bottle of shampoo washing the dog. (70) Ich habe SELBST den Hund mit einer ganzen Flasche Shampoo gewaschen. ‚I have myself washed the dog using a whole bottle of shampoo’. The exclusive reading of sentence (71) rests predominantly on the meaning of the verb, the result of the action is a washed dog, irrespective of the amount of shampoo used. (71) Ich habe den Hund mit einer ganzen Flasche Shampoo selbst gewaschen. ‚I have washed the dog myself using a whole bottle of shampoo’. The syntactic position of an intensifier is not the only factor that influences whether an inclusive or an exclusive reading of an intensifier is favored. Later in this section it will be shown that if a sentence with an intensifier scores high on a number of transitivity parameters, that is, if a sentence can be characterized as a typical instance of a transitive sentence, it is more likely to have an exclusive reading. König (1991) and Siemund (1997) have argued that intensifiers belong to the class of focus particles

38

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

and can hence be regarded as a special kind of adverb. There are a couple of features that characterize intensifiers as being different from other focus particles, like their ability to inflect, but on the whole, adverbial intensifiers syntactically and semantically function in many ways parallel to the class of adverbs and are part of the verb phrase. All of the agent-sensitive expressions listed here can be classified as verb phrase adjuncts. As the examples below show, clefting does not affect agent-sensitive expressions; the relative position of the expressions is not changed, see (72). (72) It was Peter who made the cake by himself/on his own/of his own accord. The same is true for topicalization of the verb phrase, see (73), or verb phrase anaphora, see (74). (73) Making cakes by himself/on his own/of his own accord, Peter likes to do. (74) Peter made a cake by himself/on his own/of his own accord and I did so too. In the case of topicalization (73) the position of the verb phrase is filled by the pro-form do and the entire verb phrase includig the agent-sensitive expression is moved to the left. In (74) do again substitutes the entire verb phrase, parallel to the previous example the agent-sensitive expression behaves as a co-constituent. Agent-sensitive expressions tend to occupy the same positions as adverbs do. In German this is either behind the auxiliary, see (75), or in a pre-final position, see (76). The pre-final position is favored both by adverbs and agent-sensitive expressions. (75) Ich bin von selbst/schnell aufgestanden. ‚I got up of my own accord/quickly’. (76) Auf einmal hat sich der Computer von heruntergefahren. ‚The computer has switched off by itself/silently’.

selbst/lautlos

In English, adverbs usually occur in sentence-final position, see (77), and this is also the preferred position for agent-sensitive expressions. While the position behind the auxiliary is possible, it is clearly dispreferred. In

Agent-sensitive expressions

39

this position the occurence of the intensifier x-self is often problematic, the other agent-sensitive expressions are clearly not allowed, see (78). (77) The computer has switched off by itself/silently. (78) The computer has quickly/*itself/*by itself switched off. It should be mentioned that German selbst, allein and English by x-self can also function as focus particles, see (79)-(81). Although this use is clearly related to the function of allein and by x-self that is central in the present study, it is of marginal interest here, as none of the children in the investigated age range used the expressions in the function of a scalar particle. (79) Selbst Emma hatte keinen Hunger. ‚Even Emma wasn’t hungry’. (80) Allein der Kreditbedarf für das laufende Jahr beträgt gut vier Mill. Mark.20 (81) Doubt by itself is not the final test of truth.21 In the following, the semantic contribution of the German agentsensitive expressions allein, von selbst, von allein, von sich aus and aus eigenem Antrieb and of the English expressions by x-self, on one’s own and on one’s own accord will be examined. Table 4 and Table 5 list the expressions and intensifiers in relation to the telicity of the situation and the range of application. From top to bottom the expressions are listed according to their specificity: the further to the bottom of the list an expression occurs, the more specific the referent of the subject noun phrase has to be in terms of a high position in the animacy hierarchy. Note that the tables are meant to illustrate the similarities and differences of the relevant expressions. The fact that the degree of animacy of the referent of the subject noun phrase appears on both axes illustrates that both the notions of aspectuality and animacy contribute to the description of a phenomenon that is largely prototypical in nature. A two-dimensional model can therefore pick out only the most relevant factors that influence the way in which these expressions contribute to the meaning of a sentence. From a syntactic point of view, both the English and the German system of agent-sensitive expressions include complex and simple constructions. In the case of German, the six expressions can be ordered into three groups: the two syntactically simple expressions selbst/selber and allein, which

40

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

readily interact with both telic and atelic situations albeit with a shift in meaning and, in the case of allein, also in word class when atelic situations are described. The four remaining expressions are syntactically complex, all of them having the form of prepositional phrases. While two of the expressions, von selbst and von allein, can be used with inanimate subjects, von sich aus and aus eigenem Antrieb do not take subjects that are inanimate unless the contexts are highly specific. Table 4. Agent-sensitive expressions in German Telic exclusive/inclusive22 Er hat den Garten selbst umgegraben./Er hat selbst Gärten umgegraben.

Atelic inclusive/(exclusive) Sie fährt selbst Auto./ (Sie schwimmt selbst)

State inclusive Sie hat selbst Familie.

exclusive/predicative Er hat den Garten allein umgegraben.

predicative/(exclusive) Sie fährt allein Auto. (Sie schwimmt allein.)

predicative Sie ist allein.

anti-causative: animate referents Er hat den Garten von selbst umgegraben.

anti-causative: animate referents Sie schwimmt von selbst.

anti-causative: inanimate referents Die Tür ist von selbst zugefallen.

anti-causative: inanimate referents Das Rad dreht sich von selbst.

anti-causative Er hat den Garten von sich aus umgegraben.

anti-causative Sie schwimmt von sich aus.

anti-causative Er hat den Garten aus eigenem Antrieb umgegraben.

anti-causative Sie schwimmt aus eigenem Antrieb.

Sie [Kirchenmusik] ist von sich aus ökumenisch.23

Table 5 shows that the English system is somewhat denser in that fewer expressions exist. Therefore, some of the expressions take over several functions compared to those of the German system.

Agent-sensitive expressions

41

Table 5. Agent-sensitive expressions in English Telic exclusive/inclusive He dug up the garden himself./ He dug up gardens himself.

Atelic inclusive/(exclusive) She drives her car herself./ (She swims herself.)

State inclusive She has a family herself.

exclusive/predicative: animate referents He dug up the garden by himself./ He went to the shop by himself.

predicative/(exclusive) She drives her car by herself./ (She swims by herself.)

predicative She is by herself.

anti-causative: inanimate referents The door closed by itself.

anti-causative: inanimate referents The wheel turns by itself.

predicative The tree stands in the middle of the lawn by itself.

exclusive/predicative: animate referents He dug up the garden on his own./ He went to the shop on his own.

adverb/(exclusive): animate referents She swims on her own./ (She drives on her own.)

predicative: animate referents She is on her own.

anti-causative: inanimate referents The door closed on its own.

anti-causative: inanimate referents The wheel turns on its own.

predicative: inanimate referents The tree stands in the middle of the lawn on its own.

anti-causative She left the convent of her own accord.24 The lift went down of its own accord.25

anti-causative He never acted of his own accord.26 The boat rocked gently of its own accord.27

As will be illustrated in more detail below, the German intensifier selbst/selber corresponds to the English intensifier x-self in all contexts. German allein can be translated into English by x-self or on one’s own when the noun phrase the expression interacts with has an animate referent. In cases of inanimate referents by itself and on its own behave like German von selbst and von allein in the majority of contexts. In contrast to by itself and on its own, von selbst and von allein cannot be used for states as the German expressions are not polysemic in a sense that they can also mean

42

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

‘alone’ or ‘without company’. German von sich aus and aus eigenem Antrieb correspond to English of one’s own accord and mostly interact with human referents in telic and atelic event structures but not states. 4.3. Selbst/selber and x-self The core members of the group of agent-sensitive expressions are German selbst/selber and English x-self. By and large these expressions function in fairly parallel ways when used as adverbial exclusive intensifiers. Syntactically a few differences stem from the fact that German is a V2 language. If the intensifier of a sentence is topicalized, subject and verb must be inversed in German, see (82). In English, this is not the case, but the adverbial interpretation of the intensifier is lost, see (83). (82) a. Ich habe den Garten nicht selbst umgegraben. b. Selbst habe ich den Garten nicht umgegraben. (83) a. I did not dig up the garden myself. b. Myself, I did not dig up the garden. The most obvious difference between German selbst and English x-self is the morphological complexity of the English term. It blocks ambiguity in sentences that can have both an adnominal and an adverbial exclusive reading in German, see (84), since in English the agreement markers signalling number, person and gender can be used to identify the noun phrase with which the intensifier interacts, see (85a) and (85b). (84) Ich habe den Papst selbst gesehen. (85) a. I saw the pope himself. b. I saw the pope myself. It is also usually impossible in English to combine a reflexive pronoun with an intensifier which is an option in German, see (86). (86) a. Ich habe mich selbst im Spiegel gesehen. b. I saw myself *myself in the mirror. As illustrated in Table 4 and Table 5, the less telic a sentence becomes, the more likely the intensifier is interpreted not as adverbial exclusive but as adverbial inclusive. Recall from earlier in this chapter that the syntactic

Agent-sensitive expressions

43

position of the intensifier also has some impact on its interpretation as adverbial exclusive or adverbial inclusive. Considering the semantic contribution of adverbial exclusive intensifiers on sentences, it only seems natural that the linguistic structure of a situation in which an action could theoretically be carried out by someone else is a transitive sentence with a human or an animate subject. In the following, the German and English sentences with selbst and x-self as displayed in Table 4 and Table 5 will be discussed. In most cases the examples provided function in largely parallel ways in the two languages. The digging up of a garden in (87a,b) is a prototypical example of a transitive event, the adverbial exclusive interpretation of the intensifier in both languages is evident without further context. (87) a. Er hat den Garten selbst umgegraben. b. He dug up the garden himself. In order to give the same sentence an inclusive reading, it is better to embed the sentence in a richer context (88a,b) or an indefinite object has to be used (89a,b). The use of an indefinite object in sentence (89) has an effect of detransitivizing the sentence since it is no longer telic in the sense of sentence (87). (88) a. She is not the only one who knows how to dig up her garden; yesterday, he dug up the garden himself. b. Sie ist nicht die einzige, die weiß, wie man diesen Garten umgräbt; er hat den Garten selbst umgegraben. (89) a. Don’t tell him what to do. He dug up gardens himself. b. Du brauchst ihm keine Tips zu geben. Er hat selbst Gärten umgegraben. A decreasing degree of transitivity goes hand in hand with an adverbial inclusive reading. In many cases, adverbial intensifiers in atelic situations have either a purely inclusive reading or are ambiguous between an inclusive and an exclusive reading. Atelic situations can only have an exclusive reading when the action can be carried out with help from someone else or if it can be delegated completely. While it is possible to receive help or assistance when being transported by the means of a car, see (90a), it is rather unlikely that the same kind of help can be received in the act of swimming, see (91a). On the other hand, both atelic events are easily

44

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

compatible with an inclusive reading of the intensifier, see (90b) and (91b). For states, only an inclusive reading is possible, see (92). (90) Sie fährt selbst Auto, ... ‘She’s driving her car herself’, ... a. ...sie lässt sich nicht fahren. ...’she’s not having someone drive her’. b. ...du brauchst ihr nicht zu erklären, wie man die Handbremse anzieht. ...’she doesn’t need instructions’. (91) Sie schwimmt selbst, ... ‚She swims herself’, ... a. ...??? du brauchst ihr nicht zu helfen. ...??? ’you don’t have to assist her’. b. ...sie weiß, dass Wasser nass ist. ...’she knows that water is wet’. (92) Sie hat selbst Familie. ‚She has a family herself’. It will be discussed in more detail in the results section that for the language-learning child, an adverbial exclusive reading of intensifiers is less restricted as there is quite a difference between which kind of process can be appropiately assisted when the agent is a child compared to when the agent is an adult. Hopper and Thompson (1980) describe transitivity not in terms of a general property of an entire clause in which an agent acts upon a patient, but as a number of component parts that are encoded by different grammatical means in the languages of the world. As transitivity is not seen as a discrete category but as a prototypical entity, sentences can be transitive to varying degrees. Table 6 lists the different components that add to the transitivity of a clause. A (agent) and O (object) are used for the referents in a two-participant clause without further grammatical implications about the relation of the arguments to the verb. Regarding the sentences discussed here, Er hat den Garten selbst umgegraben (He dug up the garden himself), ranks high on the scale of semantic parameters of transitivity. Only naming some of the transitivity parameters, the sentence features two participants and describes a telic action that is volitional, the sentence is also affirmative.

Agent-sensitive expressions

45

Table 6. Semantic parameters of transitivity28 participants kinesis aspect punctuality volitionality affirmation mode agency affectedness of O individuation of O

high 2 or more participants, A and O action telic punctual volitional affirmative realis A high in potency O totally affected O highly individuated

low 1 participant non-action atelic non-punctual non-volitional negative irrealis A low in potency O not affected O non-individuated

It is interesting to note that the sentence also ranks high concerning Hopper and Thompson’s last parameter that differentiates between individuated and non-individuated objects. The difference between individuated and non-individuated objects is based on the patient’s distinctness from the agent and its own background. In the examples given below, sentence (93) includes a definite O, sentence (94) an indefinite O. (93) John spilled the water. ‘John hat das Wasser verschüttet’. (94) John spilled water. ‘John hat Wasser verschüttet’. In (93) the action can be described as more effectively transferred in that no matter how much water John was carrying, it is implied that he spilled the whole amount. In (94), on the other hand, only some of the total amount of water was lost. It was mentioned above that the difference between a definite object in Er hat den Garten selbst umgegraben (He dug up the garden himself) and an indefinite object in Er hat selbst Gärten umgegraben (He dug up gardens himself) results in a less transitive sentence in the case of a sentence with an indefinite object. As a consequence, the intensifier in the sentence can more easily be interpreted as having an adverbial inclusive meaning. The sentences in (90) and (91), which are ambiguous between an adverbial exclusive and an adverbial inclusive reading, also rank lower in transitivity. In sentences like Sie fährt selbst Auto (She’s driving her car herself) the action cannot be described as being telic or punctual. In sentences like Sie schwimmt selbst (She swims herself) only one participant is present and and an adverbial exclusive reading is almost impossible.

46

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

Sentences like Sie hat selbst Familie (She has a family herself) depict states that cannot be telic and are both non-punctual and non-volitional; an adverbial inclusive reading is the only possible interpretation. The adverbial exclusive intensifiers German selbst/selber and English xself are the core members of a group of expressions that are sensitive to semantic parameters of transitivity. Depending on whether a sentence is a prototypical example of a transitive sentence in this sense or not, the expressions selbst/selber and x-self favor either an adverbial exclusive or an adverbial inclusive interpretation. If a sentence ranks high on the transitivity scale, the expressions tend to have an adverbial exclusive meaning. If a sentence ranks low on the transitivity scale, the same expressions tend to have an adverbial inclusive meaning. Sentences that have neither very high nor very low values of transitivity are typically ambiguous. It was argued in the previous section that the contexts in which adverbial inclusive intensifiers tend to occur usually have a complex structure and are unlikely to be regularly represented in young children’s discourse. The adverbial exclusive use of intensifiers, on the other hand, relates to contexts that are attractive for a child that is developing towards an independent agent. 4.4. Allein, by x-self and on one’s own While the core members of the group of agent-sensitive expressions, selbst/selber and x-self function in very similar ways concerning their syntactic and semantic properties, German allein and English by x-self/on one’s own, overlap to a much lesser degree. The differences are due to both syntactic and semantic reasons. Concerning syntax, allein is a simple expression and consists of only one word while by x-self/on one’s own is syntactically more complex and represents a prepositional phrase. Similar to selbst/selber, allein occurs post-finite in syntactic positions that can be occupied by manner adverbs such as hervorragend, see (95). (95) Sarah hat die Hochzeit allein/hervorragend vorbereitet. Sarah has the wedding alone/well organize.PART ‘Sarah organized the wedding alone/well’. English by x-self/on one’s own can occupy those positions in which prepositional phrases occur, most often this is sentence-final, see (96a). Topicalization results in ungrammatical structures, see (96b).

Agent-sensitive expressions

47

(96) a. Sarah prepared the meal by herself/on her own/in the kitchen/quickly. b. By herself/On her own/???In the kitchen/Quickly, Sarah prepared the meal. Note that with the use as an exclusive focus particle both allein and by x-self can also occur behind any noun phrase that they interact with, see (97) and (98). (97) Das schlechte Essen allein wäre kein Grund gewesen, abzufahren. (98) The bad food by itself would not have caused their departure. As the examples in Table 4 illustrate, the adverb allein can also be used adverbial exclusively. For English the examples in Table 5 illustrate that by x-self can also be used both as an adverb and adverbial exclusively. Parallel to the intensifiers selbst/selber and x-self, allein and by x-self shift function in relation to the degree of transitivity expressed. Additionally, by itself and by themselves overlap to a certain extent with German von selbst and von allein. When used with inanimate subjects, the expressions by itself and by themselves evoke alternative causes which would be an impossible interpretation of German allein. It should be mentioned at this point that the English adverb with the meaning of ‘without company’, alone, in contrast to German allein cannot replace an adverbial exclusive intensifier. The English expressions by x-self and on one’s own on the other hand can both mean ‘without company’ and ‘without help or assistance’. German allein and English by x-self and on one’s own when used as an adverb syntactically behave as such and preferably occur post-finite. It is possible to use the adverb allein in sentences that display various degrees of transitivity to the effect that the expressions mean that the referent of the subject noun phrase was without company, see (99b), (100b), (101b) and (102). (99) Er hat den Garten allein umgegraben, ‚He dug up the garden by himself/on his own’, a. …niemand hat ihm geholfen. …’nobody helped him’. b.…die anderen waren schon gegangen. ...’all others had left’. (100) Sie fährt allein Auto, ... ‚She drives her car by herself’, ...

48

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

a. ...der Fahrlehrer braucht nicht mehr einzugreifen. ...’the driving teacher does not have to assist her any longer’. b....ihr Mitfahrer ist ausgestiegen. …’the others got out of the car’. (101) Sie schwimmt allein, ... ‚She swims by herself/on her own’, ... a. ...? sie braucht keine Hilfe. ...? ’she does not need assistance’. b. ...morgens mag sie keine Gesellschaft. …’in the morning she likes to be alone’. (102) Sie ist allein. ‚She is by herself/on her own’. Parallel to the adverbial intensifier, an exclusive reading of allein and by x-self/on one’s own is most likely in transitive sentences. While in (99) the interpretation of allein or by himself/on his own meaning ‘without company’ is possible, this reading is dispreferred. The adverbial exclusive interpretation of allein or by himself/on his own parallel to exclusive selbst/selber or by x-self seems much more natural in this example. In (100) an adverbial exclusive reading is possible when an appropiate context is given (100a). Thus, in (101) a predicative reading of allein or by herself/on her own is strongly preferred, unless a context is constructed that licenses assistance in the act of swimming. For (102) an adverbial exclusive reading of allein or by herself/on her own is clearly blocked. In the discussion of the possible uses of German allein and English by x-self it is implied that if used adverbial exclusively, the expressions relate to anti-assistive contexts. In contrast to the adverbial exclusive use of the expressions German selbst/selber and English x-self, which can relate both to anti-assistive and anti-delegative contexts, allein and by x-self do not relate to contextual alternatives that imply that one person had another person do something. The relatedness of predicative (anti-commitative) and adverbial exclusive (anti-assistive) allein and by x-self/on one’s own is also reflected by the fact that the two meanings are compatible. In (103a) allein or by herself can either mean that nobody assisted Julia in driving the mower, see (103b), or it is possible to interpret the expressions in a sense that while driving the mower, Julia is without company, see (103c). The interpretation of allein or by herself as an adverb entails the interpretation of allein or by herself as having an adverbial exclusive meaning. If Julia was alone while driving the mower, she also must do the job without assistance, see (103d). The reverse, of course, is not necessarily entailed.

Agent-sensitive expressions

49

While it is possible that Julia carried out the action without assistance, it need not be the case that she was without company while doing so, see (103e). (103) a. Julia fährt den Mähdrescher allein. ‚Julia drives the mower by herself’. b. Es hat ihr niemand geholfen. ‘Nobody helped her’. c. Es war sonst niemand da. ‚Nobody else was present’. d. Es war niemand da, der ihr helfen könnte. ‚Nobody was present who could have helped her’. e. Niemand hat ihr geholfen, aber alle haben zugesehen. ‚Nobody helped her, but all watched her’. The situation described above is by no means surprising, as restrictive or exclusive focus particles that have developed from more concrete notions are a well-known phenomenon. In many cases focus particles undergo a process of semantic bleaching, allein, for instance, can be shown to have developed from the numeral ‘one’ (e.g. König 1991). The same is true for Dutch alleen that overlaps to a great extent with the meaning of German allein. The adverbial exclusive use of allein or by x-self reflects a further step towards the desemanticization of the expression. Similar situations also exist in other languages. The use of intensifiers in present day Slovak suggests that the process of semantic bleaching concerning an expression that can be used with the meaning of alone is further along than in German or English. In Yiddish, the intensifier is aleyn.29 The situation is different in comparison to German, English and Slovak, since aleyn is the core member of the lexical group of intensifiers and cannot be contrasted with another expression that also functions as an adverb with the meaning of ‘without company’. In German the situation is that allein means ‘without company’ when used as an adverb, but can also be used adverbial exclusively. English alone, on the other hand, behaves differently in that it can be used as an adverb but not adverbial exclusively. The expression by x-self both has the meaning of ‘without company’ and can function as an adverbial exclusive particle. Without doubt, other languages will present examples of similar relations between intensifiers and adverbs with an anti-comitative meaning. The interesting fact in the present analysis is that in English and German the language-learning child is presented with a semantic continuum in the case of allein and by x-self in which a more concrete use of an expression is

50

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

still transparent along with the use of the same expression that has resulted from a semantic shift process. The question that needs to be answered here is how the child enters the system and if it can be shown that a child is sensitive to the different semantic layers of the expression as documented in the first instances of use. In a majority of cases, on one’s own can be used together with animate subjects in a fashion similar to by x-self. Regarding the sentences below, see (104)-(106), the parallelism of the two expressions on one’s own and by x-self when interacting with animate subjects is largely documented by the fact that both expressions display a continuum between an adverbial exclusive use meaning ‘without help’ or ‘without assisstance’ and a predicative use meaning ‘alone’. (104) He dug up the garden on his own/by himself. (105) He went to the shop on his own/by himself. (106) She is on her own/by herself. The major difference between the two expressions lies in the fact that on one’s own is used in contexts of loneliness or bereavement, see (107). (107) a. After her husband’s sudden death, she had to do everything on her own. b. After her husband’s sudden death, she had to do everything by herself. While the sentence in (107a) implies that the widow experiences loneliness while doing her usual tasks, the sentence in (107b) can be used to express that she does not receive the help any longer. Parallel to the examples discussed above, the interpretation of on one’s own is dependent on who is addressed. It was shown that in child-directed speech, the expression by x-self can be used with the meaning of ‘alone’ in a wider range of anti-assistive contexts when it relates to an achievement of the developing child. Similarily, on one’s own in (104)-(106) rather comments on an achievement when the referent of the subject noun phrase is a child than when it is an adult.

Agent-sensitive expressions

51

4.5. Von selbst/von allein, by itself and on its own As was already mentioned earlier in this chapter, the use of German von selbst and von allein overlaps with by x-self or of one’s own accord when in association with animate referents. In cases of inanimate referents, von selbst and von allein must be translated into English by itself or of its own accord. Examples (108) and (109) illustrate that the overlap of the expressions’ meaning in anti-causative contexts holds for both telic and atelic event structures. (108) Die Tür ist von selbst/von allein zugefallen. ‚The door closed by itself’. (109) Das Rad dreht sich von selbst/von allein. ‚The wheel turns by itself’. Contrary to English by itself, German von selbst and von allein can also be used in anti-causative contexts when in association with an animate subject, see (110) and (111). In these cases von selbst and von allein must be translated into English constructions with of one’s own accord. (110) Er hat den Garten von selbst/von allein umgegraben. ‚He dug up the garden of his own accord’. (111) Sie hat das Kloster von selbst/von allein verlassen. ‚She left the convent of her own accord’. As was argued at the beginning of this section the use of agent-sensitive expressions in anti-causative contexts evokes alternative causes which are at the same time excluded. This is also true both for the sentences with inanimate referents, see (108) and (109), and for sentences with animate referents, see (110) and (111). In the case of animate referents the exclusion of an external cause usually implies an internal cause, that is, a mental decision for the action is assumed. If the agent-sensitive expression interacts with an inanimate referent the cause of the action is usually unknown.

52

Intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions

4.6. Von sich aus, aus eigenem Antrieb/Willen and of one’s own accord The last members of the group of agent-sensitive expressions that will be discussed here are most restricted in terms of which kind of subject they can occur with. All of the expressions can be used within anti-causative contexts, see (112) and (113). (112) Er hat den Garten von sich aus/aus eigenem Antrieb/Willen umgegraben, ... ...niemand hat ihn dazu gebracht. (113) He dug up the garden of his own accord, … ...nobody made him do it. German von sich aus, aus eigenem Antrieb/Willen and English of one’s own accord contribute to the meaning of a sentence in that an external cause for the action is excluded. Thereby the referents decision to act in the way s/he did is asserted. Especially the German expressions aus eigenem Antrieb/Willen, which have a relatively high lexical value, denote the mental decision of an agentive referent. The German expression von sich aus changes its semantic contribution when interacting with first and second person, see (114) and (115). (114) Von mir aus können wir heute abend ins Kino gehen. ‚I wouldn’t mind if we went to the cinema tonight’. (115) Hast du von dir aus etwas dagegen einzuwenden? ‚Is there anything against such a decision that you can think of’? As the English paraphrases show, the meaning of von mir aus/von dir aus in these sentences is somewhat similar to the anti-causative use as it also relates to a mental attitude of the referent. In contrast to the anticausative use, von mir aus/von dir aus do not function adverbial exclusively as all other expressions discussed so far do. An interesting example which shows that the generalizations described here must be taken as tendencies and not as absolute regularities comes from a newspaper article, see (116). (116) „Das Schöne an Kirchenmusik: Sie ist von sich aus ökumenisch.”30 While many speakers of German judge this example as awkward, others insist that the subject must be conceived of as personified if the sentence is

Framework for child language data analysis

53

to be accepted. Be this as it may, all other examples found for the expression von sich aus in this corpus do not have inanimate subjects. 5. Framework for child language data analysis In this chapter a basic outline of the meaning of agent-sensitive expressions was given. Two contexts were identified that are believed to be relevant in early stages of the acquisition of agent-sensitive expressions. Both antiassistive and autonomous contexts seem ideal for the development of nonnominative linguistic means to negotiate a child’s involvement in activities. With the use of an agent-sensitive expression relating to an anti-assistive or an autonomous context, the child can decline either the assistance or the completion of an activity by an adult. It could be shown that not only the core representatives of the lexical class of intensifiers, German selber/selbst and English x-self can be used within an anti-assistive context but that the related expressions German allein and English by x-self can fulfill a similar function. The final three sections of this chapter dealt with expressions that mainly relate to contexts that were described as anti-causative. It was argued that the child needs to have some knowledge of a person’s state of mind before s/he can use these expressions in a target-like manner. While it is not impossible that contexts like these play a role in the linguistic and social development of a young child, it is expected that due to the more complex structure of both the expressions themselves and the greater complexity of the alternative contexts the expressions relate to, German von sich aus, English of one’s own accord and the like will occur at a later stage in language development than German selbst/selber and allein and English x-self and by x-self.

Chapter 2 The expression x-self in acquisition studies

This chapter provides a review of literature dealing with phenomena relevant to the acquisition of intensifiers. While no studies on the acquisition of intensifiers in German are available at present, for English a number of studies exist investigating children’s acquisition of x-self as a reflexive pronoun. In this respect two related theoretical approaches have contributed to the description of x-self in language acquisition studies: binding theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986) and adapted versions thereof with a more integrative perspective resting on the belief that an account of all possible occurrences of x-self cannot only be based on the formulation of syntactic principles but must incorporate the processing of pragmatic and discourse information (e.g. Reinhart and Reuland 1993). While the studies discussed aim at explaining the acquisition of x-self as a reflexive pronoun, the present approach will take on a more functional perspective with a particular interest in the early form-function pairings that children use in adverbial exclusive contexts. The discussion of previous findings will therefore focus on non-target treatments of the expression x-self to capture deviations which may be motivated by the children’s knowledge of the discourse properties of intensifiers. In their early productions not all functions that can be identified for the expression x-self are necessarily relevant to children. However, the possibility that the children’s sensitivity to related functions of x-self has an impact on their language development will be pursued. The discussion of binding theory will focus on studies that demand an interpretation not resting exclusively on the children’s syntactic knowledge. The findings concerning children’s knowledge of principle A and principle B will be interpreted from a perspective which integrates the children’s acquisition of the expression x-self as an intensifier. For instance, a study that puts forward the claim that the acquisition of the adnominal use of xself can be related to a target-like application of binding principle A will be reviewed (McDaniel, Smith Cairns and Hsu 1990). In studies testing both children’s knowledge of principle A and principle B attention will be drawn to children’s early non-target comprehension of x-self. In comparison to the non-target interpretation of the referential properties of personal pronouns,

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

55

the question implicit in these studies is whether young children when interpreting reflexive x-self simply violate the syntactic principles underlying the use of reflexive pronouns, or if non-syntactic knowledge of the use of x-self can explain these instances. Together with findings from other languages such as Japanese, Chinese, Korean or Icelandic, occurrences of non-locally bound x-self are discussed as instances of longdistance binding. Avrutin and Cunningham (1997) offer an account of how the acquisition of logophoric reflexives integrates with the acquisition of locally-bound reflexives and make some predictions regarding children’s mastery of syntactic and discourse principles when interpreting the use of locally-bound versus non-locally bound reflexives. The results of Avrutin and Cunningham’s study will be briefly discussed here, as the discourse dependency that is relevant to the acquisition of logophoric reflexives is also relevant to the acquisition of intensifiers. The majority of studies reviewed here are experimental comprehension studies. Two studies examining longitudinal production data demonstrate however that the results of comprehension experiments match only some of the results that can be obtained from the analysis of production data (Tomasello 1992; Thomas 1994). 1. Reflexive x-self and binding theory Much research, both in linguistic theory and in language acquisition studies, has been stimulated by the formulation of Chomsky’s (1981, 1986) binding conditions. Referentially dependent expressions such as personal pronouns and reflexive pronouns are anaphoric expressions in that their reference depends on an antecedent that is given in the verbal context. While reflexive pronouns in this sense are bound by an antecedent that can be located in a local domain, see (1), personal pronouns find their antecedent in a non-local domain such as a higher clause, see (2). (1) Hermione thought that Harryi was talking to himselfi. (2) Hermionei thought that Harry was talking to heri. Chomsky’s binding conditions rest on the above observation that reflexive pronouns (anaphors) and (personal) pronouns are in complementary distribution. This relation is expressed by binding principle A, see (3), and binding principle B, see (4):

56

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

(3) An anaphor is bound in its governing category. (4) A pronoun is free in its governing category. It has been demonstrated repeatedly in language acquisition studies that around the age of four children make few referential mistakes with locallybound reflexive pronouns. That is, if asked to act out sentences like (5a,b), the vast majority of children choose the correct referent for x-self even if other referents are provided in the linguistic or non-linguistic context. (5) a. Pippi Longstocking touches herself. b. Thomas touches himself. The interesting finding regarding the referential properties of pronouns is that children at the same age still make mistakes in about 50% of the cases and allow coreference between the referent of the subject noun phrase and the pronoun in sentences like (6a,b). In terms of Chomsky’s binding principles, children show early knowledge of principle A, but apparently violate principle B for a relatively long time. (6) a. Pippi Longstocking touches her. b. Thomas touches him. Most explanations given for the children’s behaviour rest on the assumption that the children do not have to learn the principles because they are innate. What the children have to come to terms with is either the possibility that the reference of the expressions may also depend on pragmatic or discourse related principles (e.g. Chien and Wexler 1990), or the grammatical implications of the lexical properties of referring expressions (e.g. Hestvik and Philip 2000). Although the majority of analyses shows an awareness of the fact that syntactic knowledge alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for a full command of the various occurrences of x-self in English, most studies do not fully explore the possibility that the different functions that x-self can serve apart from the reflexive function can also be documented in the way children use x-self in early phases of language acquisition. The position adopted here is that children’s non-target treatment of the expression x-self before obeying binding condition A may not only be explained by the children’s acquisition of the reflexive function, but can also mirror the children’s acquisition of x-self when functioning as an intensifier or a logophoric reflexive.

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

57

1.1. Binding condition A and the acquisition of the adnominal intensifier McDaniel, Smith Cairns and Hsu (1990) tested children’s knowledge of the binding principles A, B and C in an experimental study. Their findings concerning principle A will be discussed here, as McDaniel et al. see an interdependence between the successful obeyance of principle A and the acquisition of adnominal intensifiers by the children.31 The data for the first part of the study was gathered from twenty children ranging in age from 3;9 to 5;4. For the second part of the study, nineteen children ranging in age from 2;9 to 6;7 were examined. In both parts of the study, children were confronted with sentences which they were asked to act out with toy figures or the grammaticality of which they were asked to judge. While it is generally accepted that children obey principle A around the age of four, in the first part of their study McDaniel et al. made the interesting observation that four of the older subjects (age 4;9, 4;10, 5;2 and 5;3) accepted sentences like (7) as grammatical. This is especially worthwhile noting since all but four children (these were all age 4;1 or younger) showed knowledge of principle A by both acting out sentences like (8) correctly and judging them as grammatical. (7) Himself is washing Grover. (8) Grover wants Cookie Monster to pat himself. The finding that children who obey principle A will not necessarily reject sentences like (7) led McDaniel et al. to hypothesize four different grammar types which children are supposed to pass through in the process of acquiring reflexive pronouns. The four grammar types account for the observation that very young children accept sentences like (7) and (9) as grammatical, while older children generally reject non-anaphoric x-self in object position, see (9), but not necessarily in subject position, see (7), before they reach adult judgements. (9) I am washing himself. For the second part of their study, McDaniel et al. distinguished the grammar types A, B, C and D with respect to the children’s obeyance of principle A. Grammar type B was divided into two subtypes B1 and B2. The nineteen children in the second study covered an age range from 2;9 to 6;7. Grammar type A was found in very young children (age 2;9 to 3;8). According to McDaniel et al. these children do not recognize reflexives as a

58

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

separate category of noun phrase, but analyze reflexive pronouns as consisting of a possessive pronoun and the noun self. Therefore binding principle A will not apply. Grammar type B and C are found in children ranging in age from 3;7 to 6;7 (grammar type B) or 3;8 to 6;7 (grammar type C). These children categorize reflexives as noun phrases and obey binding principle A, but as McDaniel et al. claim, differ with respect to whether they are in the process of acquiring the adnominal intensifier or not. Grammar type B children have not yet acquired the adnominal intensifier. According to McDaniel et al. they therefore reject both sentence (7) and sentence (9) as ungrammatical. Grammar type C children are in the process of acquiring the adnominal intensifier. As long as they have only acquired it partially they accept it both with (see (7) and (10)) or without (see (11)) an overt noun phrase. (10) Himself is going to school. (11) He himself is going to school. Adult-like behaviour is represented by grammar type D. Grammar types B1 and B2 are distinct in that B1 children interpret reflexives in the right domain, himself can only refer to Bert in (12), while the domain is not correct for grammar type B2 children, himself can refer to either Grover or Bert or even external referents in (12). (12) Grover wants Bert to pat himself. McDaniel et al. regard grammar types A, B, C and D as a developmental sequence in which the child’s passing through is mainly characterized by whether or not self-expressions in subject position are rejected. Acceptance of self-expressions in subject position can be motivated either by the interpretation of reflexive pronouns as consisting of a possessive pronoun plus the noun self (grammar type A), or in a later phase by the partial acquisition of adnominal intensifiers once reflexive pronouns have been correctly categorized as noun phrases (grammar type C). In the intermediate stage when children conform to grammar type B, x-self in subject position is rejected. Figue 1 shows the ages and corresponding grammar types of the individual children tested by McDaniel et al. (1990). It should be noted here, and will be discussed in more detail together with the results of the production data analysis that the majority of children confirming grammar type B are older than 5;0 (60 months) while the majority of children confirming grammar type C are younger than 5;0.

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

59

Thus the mean age of children conforming to a grammar type that is supposedly more advanced (type C) is below the mean age of children with a less advanced grammar (type B). In Figure 1 the age of the individual children in McDaniel et al.’s study is plotted against the grammar type they displayed. Additionally, the mean age of all children conforming to a grammar type is given.

84

72

60

48

36

24 Type A mean (A)

Type B mean (B)

Type C mean (C)

Type D mean (D)

Figure 1. Representation of grammar types32 McDaniel et al.’s finding that the acquisition data of English children under the age of 4;0 (48 months) might give little insight into their knowledge of binding principle A is in line with other studies where it is concluded that young English children do not seem to realize that reflexive pronouns represent anaphors (e.g. Thomas 1994). The children analyze expressions like myself as a combination of a possessive pronoun plus nominal self and thus seem to treat them parallel to constructions like my foot. This misinterpretation of English reflexive pronouns licenses several misuses which may occur in the acquisition data of the children. First, children may produce nominal self, see (13a,b). Second, overgeneralized forms such as hisself and theirselves, or other possessive expressions with

60

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

nominal self may appear in the data, see (13c-e). Finally, self-expressions may appear in structures where they have no local antecedent, see (13f), and utterances with self-expressions in subject position may be produced by the children, see (13g). (13) a. Peter hurt the self. b. Peter hurt self. c. Peter hurt hisself. d. They hurt theirselves. e. Peter hurt John’s self. f. Peter hurt myself. g. Myself hurt Peter. All but the first, see (13a), and the fifth, see (13e), sentence types have been found in the productions of English children and will be discussed in the results section. The last three sentence types were tested in the comprehension study of McDaniel et al. (1990) and were all accepted as grammatical structures by children at different ages.

1.2. Children’s knowledge of principle B Some researchers take the delay of principle B phenomenon in English child language as an indicator that until a comparatively late age children overgeneralize or misinterpret the rare occurrences of a coreferential interpretation of a pronoun and a preceding noun phrase (cf. Chien and Wexler 1990; Grodzinsky and Reinhart 1993; Wexler and Chien 1985). Taking the acquisition of languages other than English into account, researchers also show that apart from the children’s pragmatic and discourse-related knowledge about (reflexive) pronouns, the lexical properties of these expressions must also be considered (Sigurjónsdóttir and Coopmans 1996; Philipp and Coopmans 1996; Hestvik and Philipp 2000). For example, Hestvik and Philipp (2000) argue that Norwegian children’s pronoun semantic identity errors can be explained independent from the discourse and pragmatic properties of pronouns and are a result of an incomplete representation of the expressions lexical features.

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

61

1.2.1. Pragmatic principle P In following proposals made by Reinhart (1983a, 1983b, 1986), Chien and Wexler (1990) have argued that children know principle B but lack a pragmatic principle P. In (14b) both he and him are taken to be John, thus he and him are coreferential. The indexing in these sentences should be as represented in (15a) and (15b). (14) a. That must be John. b. At least he looks like him. (15) a. Thati must be Johnj. b. At least hei looks like himj. c. *At least hei looks like himi. The representation in (15c) is unacceptable as it suggests that him is referentially dependent on he which is also a violation of principle B. As the example in (15b) illustrates, if two noun phrases are non-coindexed, they may or may not corefer. The interpretation of he and him in a sentence like (15b) as coreferential is dependent on whether a pragmatic principle is in operation or not. With no specific context he and him in (15b) are interpreted as non-coreferential. If the sentence appears in a context like (15a) however, a pragmatic principle licenses the interpretation of he and him as coreferential even if the noun phrases are not coindexed.33 Regarding the acquisition of the referential properties of personal pronouns in English, Chien and Wexler (1990) argue that as long as children lack a pragmatic principle, they do not know that coreference of he and him in (14b) is only possible in very specific contexts. Therefore, they also allow non-target coreference. In a number of experiments Chien and Wexler have shown that children younger than four years of age have a great tendency to interpret sentences like (16a) as if they mean (16b). When shown a picture of the characters Goldilocks and Mama Bear in which Mama Bear is touching herself, children younger than four years of age tend to answer the question Is Mama Bear touching her? with yes. (16) a. Mama Bear is touching her. b. Mama Bear is touching herself. At the same age, children are as likely to interpret sentences like (16b) as if they mean (16a). If shown a picture in which Mama Bear is touching Goldilocks, children younger than four years of age tend to answer a

62

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

question like Is Mama Bear touching herself? with yes.34 Table 7 shows the percentage of items that children reacted to in a non-target manner when confonted with a mismatch condition as described above. Table 7. Referential properties of her/herself in mismatch conditions35 Mama Bear is touching her. Bound interpretation Non-bound interpretation Mama Bear is touching herself. Non-bound interpretation Bound interpretation

<4

4-5

5-6

6-7

Adults

70% 30%

60% 40%

50% 50%

24% 76%

0% 100%

70% 30%

33% 67%

7% 93%

1% 99%

0% 100%

Table 7 shows that children younger than four years of age systematically misinterpret a sentence like (16a) to have the meaning of a sentence like (16b) and vice versa given a mismatch condition. While the non-target interpretation of Mama Bear and her as coreferential decreases somewhat slowly and is still at 24% in the group of children that are between six and seven years of age, the non-target interpretation of Mama Bear and herself as non-coreferential in a mismatch condition decreases more quickly to 7% in the group of children that are between five and six years of age. Chien and Wexler (1990) compare these results to those of similar experiments in which a quantified noun phrase was used. (17) a. Every bear is touching her. b. Every bear is touching herself. The difference between sentences with a quantified subject noun phrase such as every bear and a subject noun phrase such as Mama Bear is that no pragmatic principle is available that licenses an interpretation of every bear and her in (17a) parallel to every bear and herself in (17b). Results concerning the mismatch condition with sentences like (17) are displayed in Table 8. The poor performance of children younger than four with reflexives is interpreted by Chien and Wexler as a manifestation of the children’s knowledge of principle A but their inability to apply it in a target-like manner before they have learned that reflexive pronouns are reflexive pronouns, or their tendency to answer questions in the mismatch condition with yes. For the children’s obeyance of principle B, the percentages given in Table 8 indicate that children are much less likely to accept a non-target

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

63

coreferential interpretation of a subject noun phrase and a pronoun object like her when the subject noun phrase is quantified. Table 8. Quantified subject NP and her/herself in mismatch conditions Every bear is touching her. Bound interpretation Non-bound interpretation Every bear is touching herself. Non-bound interpretation Bound interpretation

<4

4-5

5-6

6-7

Adults

53% 47%

40% 60%

16% 84%

13% 87%

0% 100%

70% 30%

59% 41%

17% 83%

15% 85%

0% 100%

However, since the children’s performance is at about 50% as long as they are younger than four years of age, it seems that they do not follow a systematic strategy. Comparing the children’s interpretation of her in Mama bear is touching her with her in Every bear is touching her, the children’s performance becomes better more quickly in sentences with a quantified subject noun phrase. Chien and Wexler (1990) conclude from these results that the delay of principle B effect is rooted in the absence of a pragmatic principle P in the early language of the children. In cases where pragmatic information is necessary in order to decide between a coreferential and non-coreferential interpretation of a subject noun phrase and a pronoun, children accept non-target structures as long as a pragmatic principle P is absent from their language systems. In cases where pragmatic information is irrelevant for deciding between a coreferential and a noncoreferential interpretation of a quantified subject noun phrase and a pronoun, as no coreferential interpretation is available in the adult system, children perform much better at an earlier age. Chien and Wexler’s study is designed to test children’s knowledge of principle A and principle B in different age groups. The predictions and the interpretation of the results rest on observations made about (locally-bound) reflexives and personal pronouns in the adult language system. Thus the high error rate of children younger than four who allow a coreferential interpretation of Mama Bear and her in Mama Bear is touching her is explained by a structural option manifested in the target system. The children’s behavior is interpreted as systematically following this option. The high error rate of children younger than four who allow a noncoreferential interpretation of Mama Bear and herself in Mama Bear is touching herself, on the other hand, is not regarded as systematic behaviour that is motivated by the target system. On the basis that Chien and Wexler

64

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

do not discuss uses of the expression x-self other than as a (locally-bound) reflexive this is not surprising. However, the children’s misinterpretation of the referential properties of x-self may also be interpreted as systematic before their performance regarding principle A approaches adult standards. It is not the case that before showing knowledge of principle A in a mismatch condition with sentences like Mama Bear is touching herself and Every bear is touching herself the children perform at chance and allow coreference and non-coreference of the subject and the object noun phrase in an equal amount of cases. On the contrary, children under four years of age allow an interpretation of herself to refer to Goldilocks in Mama Bear is touching herself in the majority of cases (<4: 70%). In the sentence type Every bear is touching herself the children allow herself to refer to Goldilocks in the majority of cases before they reach an age of five (<4: 70%, 4-5: 59%). Although an interpretation of herself to refer to Goldilocks in the mismatch condition is clearly a non-target use in English, instances of non-locally-bound reflexives are a common phenomenon. The function of intensifiers, long-distance bound reflexives or logophoric reflexives in English often involves the notion of contrast, perspective or discourse centrality. It must be considered a possibility that at early stages of the acquisition of x-self, children might well be aware of the non-syntactic properties of the expression. 1.2.2. Sentence-level and discourse-level anaphora Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993) have put forward the claim that coreference and binding are not governed by the same module of grammar. In their approach they offer an analysis trying to explain why around the age of five children seem to perform fine in all conditions listed below except for (19b) which corresponds to the result of Chien and Wexler’s study with the sentence Mama Bear touches her in mismatch conditions. (18) a. Condition A grammatical: Grover touches himself. (tested with picture of G. touching himself) b. Condition A ungrammatical: Grover touches himself. (tested with picture of Grover touching someone else) (19) a. Coreference grammatical: Grover touches him. (tested with picture of Grover touching someone else) b. Coreference ungrammatical: Grover touches him. (tested with picture of Grover touching himself)

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

65

(20) a. Condition B grammatical: Every monster touches him. (tested with picture of monsters touching someone else) b. Condition B ungrammatical: Every monster touches him. (tested with picture of monsters touching themselves) According to Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993), anaphoric relations such as in (19) are instances of pronouns that must be interpreted on the basis that a relation between the pronoun and a referential or discoursereferential antecedent is established. The pronoun in sentences like (20), on the other hand, must be interpreted as an instance of bound variables. This contrast can be made visible by changing the syntactic environments.36 (21) a. Luciei adores heri friends. b. Most of heri friends adore Luciei. (22) a. Every actressi adores heri friends. b. *Most of heri friends adore every actressi. In (21) the anaphoric relationship is achieved by coreference and licenses a more variable syntactic relationship of the sort that the antecedent Lucie can either be followed or preceded by the pronoun her. In (22) the anaphoric relationship is established by the interpretation of the pronoun her as a bound variable that must find its antecedent in a defined syntactic domain. Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993) assume that both coreference and binding are innate but that children suffer from processing constraints when asked to interpret anaphoric relationships that are based on coreference. According to Grodzinsky and Reinhart, the children’s processing difficulties with coreferential relationships is based on the fact that in a sentence like (23), the pronoun he can represent both an instance of binding (24a) and coreference (24b).37 (23) Alfredi thinks hei is a great cook. (24) a. Alfred (Ȝx (x thinks x is a great cook)) b.Alfredi (Ȝx (x thinks hei is a great cook)) The reading in (24a) where the pronoun is a bound variable is that the property of considering oneself a great cook is attributed to Alfred. In (24b) where the pronoun represents an instance of coreference the reading is that the property of considering Alfred to be a great cook is attributed to Alfred. These rather subtle differences are captured by Rule I as formulated by Reinhart (1983). The important distinction that is drawn in the two

66

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

representations of the formally ambiguous sentence in (23), is between sentence-level anaphora and discourse-level anaphora. Discourse-level anaphora are not sensitive to syntactic coindexation. Regardless of whether two noun phrases are in the same sentence or not, coreference assigns an identical value to noun phrases with distinct syntactic indices. If two noun phrases are coindexed, a bound interpretation is obligatory. Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993) argue that Rule I is associated with a different module than is binding and is relevant for coreference relationships in discourse. (25) Rule I: NP A cannot corefer with NP B if replacing A with C, C a variable A bound by B, yields an indistinguishable interpretation. For a language learning child, Rule I becomes relevant if they are required to interpret a sentence like (26): (26) Grover touches him. If him in (26) cannot be replaced by a bound element yielding an identical interpretation, coreference between Grover and him in the sense of (24b) would be allowed. If on the other hand him can be replaced by a bound element such as a reflexive anaphor yielding an identical interpretation, a variable binding interpretation in the sense of (24a) is obtained. The processing constraint that children suffer from is that they are required to compare the two representations to the sentence under processing that must meanwhile be kept in memory. According to Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993) this task is too complex and children give up during the execution process and end up guessing. Grodszinsky and Reinhart’s (1993) approach is essentially a challenge to Grimshaw and Rosen (1990) who also argue that the coreference aspects of binding theory are innate but do not assign coreference and binding a different modular status. Rather, Grodszinsky and Reinhart (1993) argue that the children know principle B of binding all along but do not reliably obey it. According to Grimshaw and Rosen (1990) the results indicating that children are ignorant of the coreference aspects of binding theory are due to performance factors such as conflicting knowledge of the grammatical properties and the pragmatics of pronouns. The fact that the children have to guess instead of systematically following a target or nontarget strategy also explains why children’s responses are around 50% correct and not of a higher or lower value (cf. Chien and Wexler 1990).

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

67

With their processing abilities improving as they become older, children eventually make full use of Rule I and reject coreference systematically in non-target cases. One example illustrating Grimshaw and Rosen’s claim that the nontarget performance of children may be due to conflict between two kinds of knowledge will be given here. Grimshaw and Rosen observe that if used non-contrastively and non-deictically, third person pronouns are difficult to interpret unless a linguistic antecedent is given. They note specifically that it does not seem to be enough that an antecedent is mentioned, but unless the antecedent is somewhat prominent in the discourse, the relevant sentences seem odd: (27) a. Thomas and Annika went riding. She fell off. b. Thomas went riding with Annika. She fell off. c. Annika went riding with Thomas. She fell off. Both (27a) and (27b) require stress on the pronoun for an acceptable reading. Only (27c) is non-contrastive and, hence, acceptable without stress. Assuming that children both know that pronouns normally have discourse antecedents and that normally pronouns cannot be locally-bound, if confronted with a sentence like (28), a conflict arises for the children who are asked to assign the pronoun her a referent. (28) Annika is talking to her. According to Grimshaw and Rosen (1990) the non-grammatical interpretation of her as referring to Annika is a result of respecting the pragmatics of pronouns at the cost of violating the expression’s syntactic requirements. Adults may disregard the pragmatic oddness or reinterpret the pronoun as contrastive. Although Grodzinsky and Reinhart’s (1993) approach challenges that of Grimshaw and Rosen in almost every respect, both studies are united by the fact that they draw attention to the interaction of grammatical knowledge and extra-grammatical factors that might lead the children to poor performance in finding the target antecedents for anaphoric pronouns. Rule I equips children to interpret the referential properties of pronouns on a discourse level. Along the same lines, although based on different theoretical considerations, Grimshaw and Rosen (1990) claim that the discourse-relevant properties of pronouns can in some cases be considered more relevant than their syntactic properties leading the children to non-target interpretations.

68

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

Both Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993) and Grimshaw and Rosen (1990) draw attention to the fact that children have difficulties with processing interacting knowledge from different domains such as the syntactic and the discourse-dependent properties of pronouns. Although the present analysis is not primarily concerned with the acquisition of pronouns, the important point to be noted is that studies seem to be consistent in their claim that in the process of acquiring referentially dependent expressions, children have to come to terms with the interdependencies of the expressions’ syntactic and discourse-based properties. In fact, it seems that systematic behavior can be observed in the children, resulting from a conflict of both types of knowledge. For the acquisition of the expression x-self, a similar kind of conflict regarding the syntactic and discourse-dependent properties can be expected. While the use of x-self as a reflexive pronoun is largely discourse independent and reference is established by syntactic means, the use of xself as an intensifier or as a logophor is dependent on access to discourse information. Intensifiers involve the notion of contrast in that they relate to alternative referents; logophoric reflexives are relevant in establishing a certain viewpoint in a given situation. In this respect, Grimshaw and Rosen’s claim that children not only have to resolve a conflict between syntactic and discourse knowledge when trying to interpret an expression, but that in some cases the discourse properties can be considered more relevant than the syntactic properties regarding the use of (reflexive) pronouns is of special interest in the present study. 1.2.3. Lexical failure Investigations of languages other than English show that children may also assign erroneous reference to pronouns without necessarily relying on the expressions discourse relevance. Hestvik and Philip (2000) have replicated the above findings for children acquiring Norwegian as their first language and argue that the delay of principle B effect is due to lexical performance factors. They claim that independent of discourse related principles young children lack a complete lexical knowledge of the grammatical features of pronouns. Essentially Hestvik and Philip follow Sigurjónsdóttir and Coopmans (1996) and Philip and Coopmans (1996) in that they argue that due to incomplete lexical knowledge of the properties of pronouns children overgeneralize A-Chains and produce structures that are syntactically wellformed but semantically deviant as they allow a pronoun to be bound by an ungrammatical antecedent in terms of the target structure.

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

69

In a study of Norwegian children’s comprehension of personal, reflexive and possessive pronouns, Hestvik and Philip (2000) demonstrate that children up to the age of 7;4 have difficulties with the target-like interpretation of antisubject-oriented pronouns. They claim that this is due to an imperfect representation of the lexical features of these expressions. In contrast to their English counterparts, see (29), identity of the subject and the possessive pronoun in (30a) or the object pronoun in (30b) is impossible in adult Norwegian. (29) a. The boyi lifted hisi/j hat. b. The girli put the chair behind heri/j.38 (30) a. Gutteni løftet hatten hans*i/j. boy.DEF lifted hat his ‘The boy lifted his hat.’ b. Jenteni satte stolen bak henne*i/j. girl.DEF put chair.DEF behind her. ‘The girl put the chair behind her.’ Up to an age of 7;4 Norwegian children answer the question Løfter mannen hatten hans? ‘Is the man lifting his hat?’ with yes in a mismatch condition if shown a picture of a man and a boy in which the man lifts his hat. Likewise, the children answer questions like Har mannen laget kofferten bak ham? ‘Did the man put the suitcase behind him?’ with yes in a mismatch condition where a picture is presented to the children featuring a man with a suitcase behind him and a boy without a suitcase. For English children it is, of course, impossible to test the same kind of sentences as both an interpretation with subject and pronoun identity and an interpretation with disjoint identity in sentences like (29a) and (29b) is target-like. Compared to the results of Chien and Wexler’s (1990) testing of the pronoun identity in sentences like Mama Bear is touching her (cf. Table 3) the percentage of pronoun identity errors of Norwegian children is comparatively high. Hestvik and Philip tested 44 children covering an age range from 4;5 to 7;4 with a mean age of 6;3. Table 9 shows the percentage of items that children reacted to in a non-target manner when confronted with a mismatch condition.39

70

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

Table 9. Identity errors with antisubject-oriented Norwegian pronouns Har mannen laget kofferten bak ham Identity of subject and pronoun Disjoint identity of subject and pronoun Løfter mannen hatten hans? Identity of subject and poss. pronoun Disjoint identity of subject and poss. pronoun

Children

Adults

64% 36%

0% 100%

58% 42%

4% 96%

Looking at the form-function pairings of Norwegian (reflexive) pronouns, the exceptionally high and persistent error rate of children when interpreting antisubject-oriented pronouns seems to be surprising. Table 10 reveals that comparable to German, the Norwegian pronoun system differentiates between third person object pronouns and reflexive pronouns. Table 10. Pronouns in Norwegian Subject pronoun jeg du han, hun vi dere de

Object pronoun meg deg ham, henne oss dere dem

Reflexive pronoun meg deg seg oss dere seg

Norwegian first and second person object pronouns however are identical with first and second person reflexive pronouns. The expression meg can therefore be taken to signal a first person object referent, the expression deg a second person object referent. It could be argued that to a language-learning child it may be confusing that meg and deg can either be used in coreferential constructions, or in cases of disjoint reference of subject and object noun phrase while the third person object pronouns ham, henne and dem must have a non-local antecedent. Without wanting to explore this line of argument any further at this point, it must be noted that when acquiring (reflexive) pronouns in any given language, children have to integrate the syntactic, lexical and discourse-related properties of the expression. In addition, the expressions’ morphological structure and the form-function pairings within the whole language-specific system of pronominal reference must also be taken into account. Parallel to errors in the morphological analysis of English x-self, it must be expected that analytical mistakes stemming from the relations between forms and functions of pronouns also occur.

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

71

1.2.4. The subset principle Discussing the learnability aspects of binding theory, Manzini and Wexler (1987) and Wexler and Manzini (1987) argue for a multivalue governing category parameter. With regard to the referential properties of reflexives in different languages, they claim that a subset principle prevents children from choosing too large a syntactic domain in which a reflexive expression can be bound by its antecedent. This position is challenged by Hirakawa (1990) and Matsumura (1994) who have tested the subset principle with L1-Japanese learners of English. With a detailed analysis of Japanese reflexives, Matsumura (1994) shows that Wexler and Manzini’s claims do not hold cross-linguistically, as they largely neglect the non-syntactic properties of reflexives such as viewpoint or perspective. According to Wexler and Manzini (1987) the locality requirement allows English herself only to choose a local antecedent, the noun phrase Pippi Longstocking, see (31). (31) Annikai thinks that Pippi Longstockingj blames herself*i/j. In the same sentence in a language like Japanese, see (32), or Icelandic, see (33), the reflexive can have either a local or non-local antecedent, as both Japanese and Icelandic allow long-distance binding: (32) Annikaiwa Pippi Longstockingjga Annika.TOP Pippi Longstocking.NOM zibuni/jo semeteiru to omotteiru. SELF blames COMP thinks. ‘Annika thinks that Pippi Longstocking blames her/herself.’ (33) Annikai hugsa ax Pippi Langsokkurj álasi sigi/j40. Annika thinks that Pippi Longstocking blame.SUBJ SELF ‘Annika thinks that Pippi Longstocking blames her/herself.’ A language like English represents the most restrictive, and a language like Japanese the most extensive type of language regarding the kind of grammatical elements that can occur between the reflexive expression and the antecedent. Manzini and Wexler (1987) argue for a governing category principle that distinguishes between five different values. Children in the process of language acquisition operate according to a subset principle that lets them choose the appropriate governing category for the reflexive expression in their language and the expression’s antecedent. As a more

72

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

restrictive type of language only generates a subset of the sentences that is generated by a more extensive type of language, the subset principle lets children operate with the smallest subset that is compatible with the input they receive and prevents overgeneralizations. Manzini and Wexler’s account of how children acquiring languages that allow different relations between a reflexive expression and its antecedent is entirely syntactic. They define an implicational hierarchy that incorporates the full range of variation regarding the governing category in which an anaphor can find its antecedent, see (34). (34) Ȗ is a governing category for Į iff Ȗ is the minimal category which contains Į and: a. has a subject, or b. has an INFL, or c. has a TNS, or d. has an indicative TNS, or e. has a root TNS.41 In any given language, the value of a parameter is associated with a particular lexical item in that language (Manzini and Wexler 1987: 53-55). The further to the top a lexical item realizes a value of the parameter, the more restrictive the type of language is. Languages cannot be associated with the value of the governing category parameter, rather, lexical items such as Icelandic sig are associated with the value of a parameter. For sig the value is represented in (34d). Icelandic hann is associated with value (34c) of the governing category parameter. It follows from the implicational hierarchy that the governing categories as defined by the different values (34a-e) are embedded inside one another. Thus, the Icelandic system is fairly extensive in that lexical items are associated with the values (34c) and (34d), but not with (34e). English is a restrictive kind of language as the reflexive expression himself can be associated with the value (34a) of the governing category parameter. By the subset principle, learners of a certain language are prevented to assume a too extensive governing category as the input licenses only the particular value that is represented in the language by the given lexical items. Analyzing the data of L1-Japanese learners of English, Hirakawa (1990) and Matsumura (1994) find transfer phenomena of the sort that Japanese learners of English interpret reflexive x-self to function similarly to the Japanese expression zibun, which allows both local and non-local binding. Matsumura points out that the difficulties of Japanese learners of English

Reflexive x-self and binding theory

73

might be adequately explained by different viewpoint positions that are realized in the English and the Japanese system. While zibun realizes an insentence perspective and is therefore more variable in the finding of its antecedent, the expression x-zisin functions similar to the English local reflexive x-self and requires what Matsumura calls a processor’s perspective. The frequency of zibun in spoken Japanese lets learners map this more extensive kind of reflexive expression to English x-self. Progress in choosing a local antecedent of English reflexives can only be achieved once the Japanese learners abandon the in-sentence perspective and adopt a processor’s perspective. Matsumura (1994) demonstrates in her study that Manzini and Wexler’s (1987) account gives some interesting insights into the interdependencies among the different syntactic realizations of reflexive expressions in various languages, but that their theory largely neglects nonsyntactic aspects of the use of reflexives, such as perspective or viewpoint. At first sight it seems that it could be argued that such a discussion is irrelevant in the case of the L1-acquisition of the English local reflexive xself. Even if a processor’s perspective is taken when using this expression, the syntactic knowledge of the locality requirement might be sufficient to generate the right kind of structure. As long as no other occurrences of xself that depend on a different kind of perspective are documented in the language, no conflict between different syntactic structures has to be resolved. Contrary to a position like that of Manzini and Wexler (1987), however, in English no clear-cut situation exists that only allows referential x-self to signal cases of local binding. On the contrary, referential x-self also occurs in instances of non-local binding.

1.3. Summary Most of the studies reported on here are united by very similar findings regarding early linguistic behavior of the English children while in the process of acquiring pronouns and the expression x-self. For the present study it is important to be aware of the fact that a recurring aspect in many studies is a need to relate non-syntactic knowledge like discourse structure or viewpoint-taking to the children’s behavior. For a child acquiring the referential properties and the different functions of x-self it is important to integrate syntactic and discourse knowledge and to differentiate the various functions of x-self such as a reflexive and a logophoric and an intensive use accordingly. Chien and Wexler’s (1990) finding that children’s non-target treatment of reflexive x-self under the age of four seems to be systematic is

74

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

especially relevant to the present analysis. If, as Chien and Wexler argue, children are aware of different functional possibilities in the case of personal pronouns from early on, there is no reason to assume that this is not also true for the expression x-self. It must be considered a possibility that the children’s non-coreferential interpretation of x-self under an age of four is as systematically motivated by the target system as the children’s coreferential interpretation of third person object pronouns. Chien and Wexler’s results suggest that children older than five have mastered the use of x-self, but still have problems with the referential properties of pronouns. Regarding the acquisition of x-self, this seems to be true in cases of local binding. However, as McDaniel, Smith Cairns and Hsu (1990) demonstrated in their study, children as old as 6;7 still can show signs of not having fully acquired the use of x-self. With regard to a target-like treatment of coreferential relationships Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993) and Grimshaw and Rosen (1990) argue that children have to learn how to identify true instances of coreferential relationships when dealing with pronouns in local domains. Although the coreferential interpretation of pronouns is a highly marked option in English in a majority of contexts, it seems to be frequently attested in child language. According to Grodzinsky and Reinhart, as soon as the children’s processing abilities are sufficiently mature, the children are able to employ Rule I and rule out non-target instances of a coreferential interpretation of pronouns in local domains. As Grimshaw and Rosen point out, children do not only have to learn how to integrate their syntactic and discourse/pragmatic knowledge when using pronouns, but also that discourse/pragmatic knowledge might in some cases be more relevant. Working in the same kind of framework, it is shown with the example of children acquiring Norwegian that grammatical differences between languages may call for another influence on the performance of children when comprehending pronouns. In the case of antisubject-oriented object and possessive pronouns Norwegian children are at times unable to integrate the lexical properties of pronouns and allow non-target interpretations (Hestvik and Philip 2000). Challenging the position of Manzini and Wexler (1987) and studies conduced within their kind of framework, Matsumura (1994) raises the question if and how learners of English as a second language systematically employ non-syntactic knowledge of the use of the expression x-self. Accounts like that draw attention to the fact that although the different syntactic status of various possible occurrences of reflexive expressions across languages can be precisely defined, the complexity of the way in which discourse or

Logophoric reflexives

75

pragmatic knowledge interacts with the use of referential expressions must not be underestimated. The next section will deal with the acquisition of English non-locally bound x-self. Findings suggest that parallel to the acquisition of the target interpretation of pronouns in object position, children are dealing with a syntax-pragmatics interface when trying to establish the referential properties of the expression x-self (cf. Avrutin and Cunningham 1997). 2. Logophoric reflexives The binding conditions as formulated by Chomsky (1981) seem adequate for capturing the occurrences of reflexives and personal pronouns that are motivated syntactically. While it has been realized that the reference of personal pronouns can also be discourse dependent when the expressions are used deictically, referentially or in coreferential relations, accounts such as the one of Reinhart and Reuland (1993) have pointed out that reflexive pronouns too can be interpreted from a discourse perspective. Their approach includes the reformulation of c-commanding and coindexation as reflexivity, which is to be understood as a condition on predicates. According to Reinhart and Reuland, binding conditions A and B apply when the predicate is interpreted as reflexive. In cases where a pronoun or reflexive is present in a sentence whose predicate cannot be interpreted as reflexive, the expressions are not subject to the syntactic binding conditions but have to be interpreted from an extra-syntactic discourse perspective. Chomsky’s binding principle A applies to a sentence like (35), the noun phrase Norbert c-commands the expression himself, the two arguments are coindexed. (35) Norberti covered himselfi. In Reinhart and Reuland’s theory, the predicate cover is reflexivemarked as one of its arguments is a self-anaphor. The predicate is thus required to be reflexive which is achieved by the coindexation of the two arguments.42 While nothing much seems to be gained from such an analysis for sentences like (35), the major advantage of Reinhart and Reuland’s approach is that they offer an explanation for the non-complementary distribution of reflexives and pronouns in the so-called ‘snake-sentences’, see (36), and the occurrence of x-self in sentences like (37).

76

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

(36) Norbert saw a snake near himself/him. (37) Lucie counted 5 tourists in the room apart from herself. In following Marantz (1984), Reinhart and Reuland (1993) argue that the complement of the locative preposition in (36) receives its theta-role directly from the preposition. The argument Norbert on the other hand receives its theta-role from the main predicate. Consequently, the antecedent Norbert and the reflexive himself are not co-arguments of the same predicate and the binding principles do not apply. Rather nonsyntactic, discourse-based information determines the reference of the reflexive.

2.1. Logophoric reflexives and intensifiers One other approach that directly addresses the close interrelation of intensifiers and logophoric expressions is that of König and Siemund (1999) who in contrast to Reinhart and Reuland (1993), have offered an analysis that treats x-self in sentences like (38) and (39) as headless intensifiers.43 (38) He [Zapp] sat down at the desk and opened the drawers. In the top right-hand one was an envelope addressed to himself.44 (39) On behalf of myself and USAir, we would like to thank you... As König and Siemund observe, a main disadvantage of Reinhart and Reuland’s approach is that, apart from their claim that the use of logophoric reflexives is motivated by discourse considerations, nothing much is said about the conditions in which logophoric reflexives occur. The same kind of criticism applies to Zribi-Hertz (1989) who argues that locally free reflexives are bound by a minimal subject of consciousness and thereby extends the applicability of Chomsky’s theory from a local domain to a discourse domain. While Zribi-Hertz’s analysis matches examples like the ones given in (38) and (39) it cannot explain occurrences of locally free reflexives that are not used logophorically, see (40). The example shows that the point of view taken is clearly that of a character called Casey and thus himself cannot be bound in the sense of Zribi-Hertz.45 (40) ‘Casey had a lot on her mind. She was still trying to figure out what

Logophoric reflexives

77

Marder was doing ... how could he say that ... she did not understand how his behavior could do anything but damage the company - and himself.’46 König and Siemund suggest an analysis of locally free occurrences of the expression x-self as an adnominal intensifier with a deleted or incorporated head, see (41). This kind of analysis follows Baker (1995), who argues that locally free x-self is an instance of intensified nonnominative pronouns, see (42). (41) him himselfĺ himself (42) him + self ĺ himself Baker’s analysis of locally free x-self adapts a synchronic analysis of the historical development of all x-self forms in English. In Old English a nonnominal pronoun like hine could be coreferential with a local antecedent, see (43).47 (43) hinei hei bewerap mid wFpnum. he.ACC he defend.PAST with weapon.PL ‘He defended himself with weapons.’48 However, even if contextual information suggested coreference of he and hine in (43), sentences of this kind were ambiguous between such a reading and a non-coreferential reading. Disambiguation could be achieved by the use of self, see (44).49 (44)

se HFlendei sealde [hine sylfne]i the Saviour give.PAST he.ACCSELF ‘The Saviour gave himself for us.’50

for us. for us

König and Siemund’s and Baker’s analyses of locally free x-self combine the disambiguating function of intensifiers with the semantic conditions relevant for the occurrence of adnominal intensifiers.51 In chapter 1 it was demonstrated that adnominal intensifiers have two basic semantic properties: they evoke alternatives to the referent of their nominal co-constituent and they structure both the referent of the nominal coconstituent and the evoked alternative referents in terms of center and periphery. Of the four manifestations that Baker (1995) and König (2001) list for adnominal intensifiers, only the fourth is logophoric. Although

78

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

many instances of locally free reflexives seem to be logophoric in that the center of perspective is expressed, Baker lists a number of non-logophoric locally free occurrences of x-self, see (45) and (46).52 (45) ‘But at the same time, she could not help thinking that no one could so well perform it as himself.’53 (46) ‘Vain indeed must be all her attentions, vain and useless her affection for his sister and her praise of himself, ...’54 A final point to be mentioned is that in Irish English the most salient person in a given context can be referred to by a form of x-self in subject position, see (47).55 (47) a. Herself will tell you. b. It’s himself is going to speak today. It is impossible to give an indepth analysis here of the research centering around Chomsky’s binding conditions and of approaches that aim at the integration of local and non-local uses of the expressions x-self. The rather short sketch that was given above is meant to draw attention to the fact that for the present analysis the important point to keep in mind is that an expression like English x-self can be interpreted both from a syntactic perspective and from a discourse perspective. Children acquiring English as their first language hear x-self being used referentially as a reflexive anaphor and in non-argument positions as an intensifier. Additionally, they are confronted with a locally free use of x-self in cases when a certain viewpoint is established or a referent is characterized as most central in syntactic environments that lack a nominal/pronominal co-constituent. Accounts like that of König and Siemund (1999), Baker (1995) or ZribiHertz (1989) demonstrate that in English no clear-cut situation exists in that the different functions of x-self are neatly separated regarding their syntactic, semantic and discourse properties. On the contrary, a large amount of overlap exists between the different functions of x-self as a reflexive, logophor or as an intensifier. The language-learning child is presented with a situation in which the same expression occurs in different syntactic environments and in which varying degrees of discourse information are necessary for the identification of its referential properties. The acquisition of the intensive function of x-self requires the child to realize that intensifiers do not have direct referents such as reflexives and logophors, but that intensifiers are in association with the referent of a noun

Logophoric reflexives

79

phrase. With logophors, intensifiers share the discourse relevance and the element of contrastiveness, a property largely absent from the use of x-self as a locally-bound reflexive. In this respect reflexive pronouns seem to be the exception rather than the rule. The use of x-self as a reflexive pronoun presents the only case in which the child must mainly rely on the expression’s syntactic properties for the identification of its function in linguistic structures. All studies discussed so far are based on the assumption that children initially concentrate on a given expression’s syntactic properties and only learn to integrate its discourse properties at a later stage. The next study to be discussed here is no exception in this respect. Avrutin and Cunningham’s (1997) investigation of the acquisition of logophoric reflexives reflects a position formulated in linguistic theory that acknowledges the function of logophoric reflexives as expressions that cannot be captured by the syntactic conditions as implied in the binding principles (cf. Reinhart and Reuland 1993). From the perspective of the linguistic properties of reflexives it is argued that logophoric reflexives are exceptional cases of x-self and that their discourse properties are acquired at a later stage.

2.2. The acquisition of logophoric reflexives Logophoric reflexives and intensifiers share the property of discourserelevance and more specifically, the ability to interact with perspectivetaking. Syntactically, logophoric reflexives are similar to reflexive pronouns in that they also represent noun phrases, although Reinhart and Reuland (1993) show that in contrast to ‘syntactic’ reflexives, logophoric reflexives are not (co-)arguments with another argument of the same predicate and that their referential identity is discourse-dependent. For the present analysis, the study of the acquisition of logophors is relevant, as their semantics locate them somewhere between reflexive pronouns and intensifiers. Logophoric reflexives are discourse-dependent in that their referential properties are defined by a participant that need not be mentioned in the verbal context in the case of first and second person reflexives or in a local domain in the case of third person reflexives.56 In their experimental study, Avrutin and Cunningham (1997) tested children’s comprehension of sentences that included either a syntactic or a non-syntactic/logophoric reflexive. In an attempt to evaluate the competing approaches to referentially dependent expressions as formulated by

80

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

Chomsky (1981, 1986) in his binding conditions and Reinhart and Reuland (1993) in their approach that reformulates the binding conditions as conditions on predicates, Avrutin and Cunningham presented children with two different kinds of sentences in two experiments. Their first experiment was a truth-value judgement task as introduced by Crain and McKee (1985). The children are presented with a picture and a sentence that goes along with the picture. Then a Sesame Street character, Bert, says something that either describes the picture or is in conflict with it. The children can ‘reward’ or ‘punish’ Bert depending on whether they think what he said is right or wrong. The sentences Bert says are either of type A or of type B. Type A sentences contain the expression x-self as a coargument according to both the binding conditions of Chomsky (1981) and the reflexivity approach of Reinhart and Reuland (1993), see (48). (48) Sentence type A: The woman near the girl is tickling herself. In the ‘true’ condition children would see a picture of a woman tickling herself; in the ‘false’ condition the picture showed a girl tickling herself. Type B sentences contain the expression x-self with the status of a logophoric reflexive in the approach of Reinhart and Reuland. Accordingly, children were shown pictures in which either a woman drew a circle around herself or one in which a girl drew a circle around herself, see (49). (49) Sentence type B: The woman near the girl drew a circle around herself. The children in the study were aged 3;5-4;9 with a mean age of 4;2 and made more mistakes in the ‘false’ condition than in the ‘true’ condition regardless of the sentence type, see Table 11.57 While an equal percentage of errors occured in the ‘true’ condition with both sentence types, 5%; in the ‘false’ condition, the children made more mistakes with sentence type B than with sentence type A in the ‘false’ condition. Table 11. Total errors in Avrutin and Cunningham’s (1997) study Type A, errors Type A, not errors Type B, errors Type B, not errors

True 5% 95% 5% 95%

False 21% 79% 54% 46%

Logophoric reflexives

81

The interesting fact for the present study is that if the children made an error in the ‘false’ condition, they accepted the expression x-self to refer to the girl instead of the woman. In 21% of the cases, x-self in sentence type A was interpreted to refer to the false referent and in 54% of the cases where x-self appeared in sentence type B, it was interpreted to refer to the false referent. Children of age 3;5 and older still have problems with the referential properties of both reflexive pronouns and logophoric reflexives regarding a target-like usage. In comparison, children’s performance in the false condition when asked to interpret a reflexive pronoun was much better than when asked to interpret the referential properties of logophoric reflexives. The children performed at chance when asked to say whom xself in a sentence like (49) refers to. Avrutin and Cunningham conclude from these results that for the interpretation of reflexive pronouns versus logophoric reflexives, children have access to discourse information at a later stage than they have access to syntactic information. Formulated differently, children allow variable reference for x-self until later stages in development in cases where discourse information is relevant. In Chien and Wexler’s (1990) study, children under an age of 4;0 systematically misinterpreted reflexive x-self to refer to non-coreferents. In the next age group, they allowed reflexive x-self to refer to non-coreferents in just 33% of the cases. Only from age 5;0 onwards the children interpreted reflexive x-self in a target-like manner. Similarly, McDaniel et al. demonstrated that under an age of 4;0 children accepted non-anaphoric x-self both in object and subject position. Even in their seventh year of life children behaved not fully target-like accepting sentences like Himself is going to school. The findings shed light on the fact that it takes English children a relatively long time to arrive at a target-like application of x-self in all possible uses. Especially in cases where the identity of an expression’s referent is dependent on discourse information, non-target treatment of x-self is common and persists for a relatively long time. The next section will give a short account of a related phenomenon in adult systems. The expression x-self in Modern English has developed from an earlier system in which the use of personal pronouns was systematically ambiguous between a coreferential and a non-coreferential reading (Farr 1905; Keenan 2001). From a semantic perspective, the interesting question for the present analysis is whether any of the historical operations such as the use of the intensifier seolf/self/sylf for disambiguation or a contrastive use of x-self forms is relevant in children’s early language.

82

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

3. Children’s early systems and historical development of x-self In a historical account of the creation of reflexive pronouns in English, Keenan (2001) argues against a process of parameter resetting or grammaticalization and offers a diachronic perspective on the expression xself that takes the initial state of the Old English anaphora system as a basis. Keenan explains the development towards Modern Standard English in terms of two general forces of change, decay and inertia, and two universal semantic constraints on language, constituency interpretation and antisynonymy. The term anti-synonymy is taken from Clark (1993), who cites psycholinguistic support for the existence of such a semantic constraint regarding the process of language acquisition and argues that there is a tendency in language users to assume that different forms also have different meanings. The relevance of a semantic constraint both in the historical change of a language and the acquisition process supports the position that both adults and children have access to the same cognitive principles that govern the structure of a language. The semantic constraint of anti-synonymy will not be further pursued here, but the position that, on the basis of identical cognitive principles, the systems of children are sensitive to the same or related linguistic structures as the adult systems will be considered as a possible source of the non-target structures that the children produce. In the following paragraphs, the anaphora profiles of Modern Standard English and Old English will be shortly described following the presentation in Keenan (2001). Although this option cannot be analyzed in full depth, I will examine whether the two systems are structurally related in a way that some functions of the self-expression that are no longer part of the Modern English system might still be relevant for the language learning child. Of the five properties that Keenan (2001) lists as defining the system of Modern Standard English with regard to self-forms, four are relevant for the present study:58 (49) a. locality b. occurrence in subject position c. occurrence in inherently constrastive expressions d. occurrence as non-arguments Examples for the manifestation of the four properties are given below: (50) a. Pippi thought that Annika was talking to herself.

Children’s early systems and historical development of x-self

83

b. Pippi thinks that *herself/she is the strongest girl in the world. c. Pippi made up a story that neither herself nor Annika and Thomas could believe. d. Pippi carried her horse herself. In Modern Standard English herself in (50a) is bound by Annika, it cannot refer to Pippi or another participant in the discourse. The expression herself in (50b) cannot occur as a bare subject, Modern Standard English requires an expression that is not (locally) bound to occur in this position. In (50c) herself occurs non-locally bound in what Keenan calls an ICE (Inherently Contrastive Expression). The sentence given is an example of a coordination of noun phrases; exception noun phrases, ‘no one but himself’, and comparatives, ‘stronger than himself’, are also common for this kind of use (cf. Siemund 2000). The sentence in (50d) gives an example of the occurrence of a self-form as a non-argument. As Keenan argues, non-argumental self-forms can appear adverbially or in apposition to definite noun phrases and always carry a contrastive value. In the present analysis, this kind of use of a self-form is identified as the use of x-self as an intensifier in Modern Standard English. For Old English, the relevant properties of the anaphora profile are the following: (51) a. pronouns in cases of local (and non-local) binding b. occurrence of [pronoun + self] in ICEs c. adverbial occurrence of self Examples illustrating the properties in (51a-c) are given in (52a-c):59 (52) a. ...hwex he hine gefreelsian wolde60 ...whether hei (nom) himi (acc) set-free would ...’whether he would set himself free.’ b. Selx Goxe his Fhta and hine selfne diobule.61 ‘(He) gives to God his good and himself to the devil’. c. xFt hi hit selfe dydon.62 that they it self.M.PL did ‘That they did it themselves.’ In Old English bare personal pronouns could occur in contexts of local binding (52a). The example given in (52b) is similar to (50c) in that the self-form appears in an ICE. The use of selfe in (52c) is that of an adverbial intensifier, selfe implies that no one else did the task or that the agents

84

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

mentioned did not receive assistance. In early Old English, self existed as an independent word that was inflected like an adjective for case, number and gender. The use of the expression was obligatorily constrastive, the examples given in (52b) and (52c) illustrate this contrastiveness. It is important to be aware of the fact that pronouns could be used in cases of local binding and that the expression [pronoun + self] became a phonological word that could be used both referentially and nonreferentially not before the onset of the Middle English period. During the Middle English period [pronoun + self] can also be used in subject position.63 (53) ...to Rrymenild he ne sente,/ ne him self ne wente.64 ...’to Rymenild he did not send, nor himself did not go’. According to Keenan the obligatory contrast interpretation of [pronoun + self] is not lost until the sixteenth century when [pronoun + self] rapidly adopts the syntactic function of local binding. The use of [pronoun + self] as a subject continues into the late eighteenth century. Keenan’s analysis draws attention to a fact that has so far received little attention in studies dealing with the acquisition of the expression English xself. Even if most of the occurrences of x-self in Modern Standard English signal local coreference, there are many examples of uses of x-self that still display the notion of contrastiveness. For the most part, the use of x-self as an intensifier and instances of long-distance binding or inherently contrastive expressions represent this type.65 It will not be argued here that the child’s ontogenetic development directly mirrors the phylogenetic development of his target language. It must, however, be noted that the child’s input when acquiring the use of x-self in English does not only consist of x-self functioning as a reflexive pronoun, but also of instances of x-self being used in a more discourse motivated manner. Just as an integrated theory of all possible occurrences of x-self must incorporate both reflexive pronouns and intensifiers and other uses of x-self, the explanation of children’s behavior regarding the acquisition of x-self must also try to consider the full array of functional possibilities. A second point that needs to be mentioned in this respect is that although children who are acquiring Standard Modern English are not directly confronted with structures that are characteristic of a historical state of the language system there is still an obvious structural relatedness of the two systems. Recall that the use of xself in subject position is characteristic of languages that belong to the same language type as English in terms of the formal identity of reflexive

The expression x-self in production data

85

pronouns and intensive expressions. The subject occurrences of x-self are still present in contemporary Irish English and disappeared from the Middle English data that Keenan analyzed as late as the end of the eighteenth century. Instances in which x-self regularly appears in subject position are numerous in both historical and contemporary language systems that are in structural relation to English. As Keenan shows, this kind of use is rooted in a semantic property of the once independent expression self, contrastiveness, that is still a major feature of several uses of the expression x-self in contemporary English. For the present study it is important to note that English children, when using and accepting non-target utterances, may not be generally violating the English structures, but could be reflecting possibilities associated with a related language system. 4. The expression x-self in production data Contrary to the number of experimental comprehension studies, the emergence of x-self in longitudinal production data has not been discussed extensively. Early utterances of children containing the expression x-self are mentioned in Tomasello’s (1992) study of an English child’s early language development and in a study looking at the use of English reflexive pronouns by a number of English speaking children documented in the CHILDES database (Thomas 1990). In Tomasello’s study, the use of isolated self is documented from an age of nineteen months onwards. The child uses the expression self when ‘she wants to be left alone to perform an activity by herself’ (Tomasello 1992: 302). From an age of 21 months self or myself appear in combinatoral utterances with much the same meaning, see (54). (54) a. do it self me b. have one to myself, daddy c. no, mommy, wipe butt off self d. take it off by myself All examples that Tomasello lists are usages of a self-expression in the function of an intensifier, there are no utterances in which a self-expression functions referentially. In (54a) the child Travis wants to undress herself, in (54b) she also wants a nut, in (54c) and (54d) she fends off help in being wiped or in taking her shoes off.

86

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

In Thomas’ (1990) study nine children of the CHILDES database covering an age range from 1;2 to 5;4 are analyzed regarding their use of the reflexive pronoun. Using the CLAN program for analysis, all utterances containing some kind of self-expression are extracted. The discussion of Thomas’ findings are especially relevant for the present analysis as the data of some of the children that appeared in Thomas’ study will also be analyzed here. The focus of attention will be on Thomas’ claim that of the total of 539 utterances with a self-expression that she found, the majority are examples of reflexive pronouns. It will be argued here that Thomas’ categories are somewhat general in that they allow utterances to be included that would be interpreted as intensifiers in the present study. Regarding the expression’s syntactic and discourse-related properties, about half of the examples she found can be recategorized as intensifiers. As could be expected, the results of Thomas’ study are in part difficult to compare to results obtained in experimental studies. Apart from the fact that reflexives are rare in the speech of the children, the syntactic contexts that are tested in experimental studies hardly play a role in production data. In many cases, experimental stimuli test the children’s comprehension of third-person forms. On the contrary, in the production data the majority of used forms are first- and second-person singular. Among the utterances that Thomas lists, many are target-like uses of x-self as a reflexive pronoun (55). Other uses include non-target structures in which x-self is not locallybound (56), or appears in subject position (57). Note that structures like (56) and (57) have also been found to be accepted by children in experimental comprehension studies. (55) I hurting myself. (56) You dress myself. (57) Yourself would hate you.

(Naomi 2;9) (Sarah 2;3) (Abe 3;10)

For the present study, the most interesting finding of Thomas is her claim that ‘about half of the reflexives in the production data appeared in an adverbial phrase meaning „alone” or „without assistance”, as the object of an optional preposition by’ (Thomas 1994: 271), see (58) and (59). (58) I want choose it myself. (Eve 2;3) (59) a. Yes sure can she eat by herself. (Nina 2;5) b. No you do it by yourself. (Naomi 3;5)

The expression x-self in production data

87

As Thomas herself observes, the self-expressions in the sentences above mean something like alone or without assistance. Recall that these are semantic paraphrases of what is regarded as adverbial exclusive intensifiers in this study. If x-self in sentences like (57) and (58) can be paraphrased by alone or without assistance, it seems reasonable to assume that myself represents an intensifier rather than a reflexive pronoun in this sentence. This finding is further supported by the fact that the syntactic position of myself makes it difficult if not impossible to categorize the expression as a reflexive pronoun. Since reflexive pronouns represent noun phrases, it should be possible to exchange myself for some other noun phrase without risking the grammaticality of the sentence. While this poses no problem in reflexive constructions, see (60), the sentence in (61a) becomes more ungrammtical and quite meaningless if John is inserted in the position of myself, see (61b). (60) a. I hurting myself. b. I hurting John. (61) a. I want choose it myself. b. *I want choose it John. Contrary to Thomas’ claim that utterances such as those listed above, see (59), are all examples of a self-expression together with what Thomas calls the optional preposition by, it will be argued here that both sentences like (58) and sentences like (59) are examples of adverbial exclusive expressions. This is documented not only by their semantic and syntactic status, but most probably also by the contextual conditions in which they appear. The context of Thomas’ examples will not be discussed here as some of the children are also analyzed in the present study and will be discussed in more detail in the results section. The difference between a sentence type like (58) and a sentence type like (59) is not a question of whether the preposition by is optional or not, but the two expressions x-self and by x-self represent different syntactic structures with distinct meanings. While (58) is a plain example of the adverbial exclusive intensifier, the expression by x-self in sentences like (59) is an example of a syntactically more complex version of an adverbial exclusive expression that cannot only be paraphrased by alone or without assistance, but in certain environments also with alone or without company. It was demonstrated earlier that in German and English there can be quite a bit of overlap between the form and function of adverbial exclusive intensifiers and

88

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

expressions meaning ‘alone’ or ‘without company’ such as German allein and English by x-self. Thomas claims that only ‘one emphatic reflexive appeared in child speech among the CHILDES transcripts I searched’ (Thomas 1994: 273). At age 3;6, the child Adam produced an utterance containing the expression myself, see (62), which Thomas classifies as an emphatic reflexive. (62) I hope so myself too.

(Adam 3;6)

Thomas discusses her finding but it does not become clear what her conception of an emphatic reflexive is. On the one hand she refers to McDaniel et al.’s (1990) study, which quite unambiguously covers only adnominal intensifiers with the term emphatic reflexive. On the other hand she compares the child’s utterance to examples of adults’ utterances which contain either an adnominal intensifier (63) or an adverbial inclusive intensifier (64). Thomas claims that when Adam’s mother produces (65), it may either have a reading like (66a), or a reading in which the reflexive is the complement of a deleted preposition by, see (66b). (63) (64) (65) (66)

T.E. Eastman... By the cat himself and T.E. Eastman I haven’t seen this book myself. Yes you have some yourself. a. Even you [may] have some. b. You [may] have some by yourself.

In the framework adopted in the present study a sentence like (66a) will not be regarded as possible paraphrases of (65). This is not to say that there is no semantic relationship between the expressions yourself in (65), even in (66a) and by yourself in (66b). In fact the German translations of (65) and (66a) use an identical expression, see (67). (67) a. Ja, du hast selbst etwas. b. Selbst du hast etwas. 5. Research questions In this section, the questions that guide the empirical part of the present study will be formulated. The research questions are derived both from the semantic analysis of intensifiers and related expressions and from the

Research questions

89

discussion of child language studies relevant to acquisition of the expression x-self. In the first part of this volume, the semantic and pragmatic properties of German and English intensifiers and the way in which they relate to a given context were analyzed. Along the same lines a semantic analysis of German and English expressions that are similar in use to the adverbial exclusive use type of intensifiers was given. It was shown that the adverbial exclusive use type of intensifiers could be integrated into a system of agent-sensitive expressions which all interact with the agentive properties of the subject referent. The contexts that agent-sensitive expressions can relate to overlap to a large degree with those of adverbial exclusive intensifiers. In the process of developing a target-like use of the expressions investigated in the present study, the children need to integrate the semantic and the pragmatic properties of the expressions, and they need to find out how the expressions can be related to the context in which they occur. The comparative analysis of the German and the English system will serve as a basis for the investigation of how children acquire agentsensitive expressions as a non-nominative means of expressing agency. By comparing the German and the English children, inferences can be made about the impact of the target language structure on the children’s early productions. The second part of the volume was devoted to giving an account of previous research on the acquisition of intensifiers. The studies reviewed focus on the acquisition of the English reflexive pronoun that in English is formally identical with the intensifier. It was argued that the major drawback of the studies is that they are mainly based on a description of the syntactic properties of the English reflexive pronoun and hardly account for the children’s non-syntactic knowledge when in the process of acquiring the expression x-self. It is assumed in the present approach that a full account of the acquisition of the expression x-self in English must incorporate both the children’s syntactic and non-syntactic knowledge, as it is impossible to predict which properties of the expression x-self play a role in early phases of language development. The children’s first uses of the expression x-self need to be examined in order to find out which properties are encoded. Only on this basis is it possible to give an account of how English children learn to use the different functions of x-self. For a possible comparison of the results obtained in comprehension studies on the use of x-self in longitudinal production data, the main findings of the studies discussed are represented in Table 12.66 Table 12 illustrates the findings of experimental studies testing English children’s comprehension of x-self. Very young children who just begin to use the expression often show signs of being influenced by the expressions

> 5;0

4;7 – 5;0

4;1 – 4;6

3;7 – 4;0

3;1 – 3;6 morphology: x-self analysed as poss. pr. + nominative self (grammar type A)

discourse: nonanaphoric x-self in subjectposition accepted (grammar type A)

McDaniel et al. (1990)

syntax: children obey locality requirement (grammar type B, C, D)

Table 12. X-self in comprehension studies

discourse: nonanaphoric x-self in subjectposition and objectposition rejected (grammar type B, D)

discourse: nonanaphoric x-self in subjectposition accepted (grammar type C) syntax: children obey locality requirement

discourse: children allow non-local referents for x-self

Chien and Wexler (1990)

syntax: children obey locality requirement

discourse: children allow local and nonlocal referents for logophoric reflexives

Avrutin and Cunningham (1997)

90 The expression x-self in acquisition studies

Research questions

91

morphological makeup (cf. McDaniel et al. 1990). The composition of a genitive determiner and the noun self leads to analytical mistakes that are somewhat hard to overcome in reflexive contexts, as mostly there is little conflict between sentences like (68a) and (68b). (68) a. She hurt herself. b. She hurt her self. It is likely that overgeneralization errors that are clearly non-target structures such as hisself may help the child to realize that the reflexive pronoun x-self underlies different syntactic requirements than noun phrases consisting of a possessive pronoun and a noun. Regarding the locality requirement of x-self, the studies listed here demonstrate that around the age of 4;0 children show signs of obeying principle A. In McDaniel et al’s (1990) study all but the youngest children show knowledge of principle A. The mean ages of children conforming to grammar type B, C and D are 4;9 for grammar type C and 5;5 for grammar type B and D. Parallel to this finding the children in Chien and Wexler’s study perform to adult standards in a majority of cases from an age of 4;0 onwards. The mean age of the children in Avrutin and Cunningham’s study who obeyed the locality requirement is 4;2. As can be seen in Table 12, before children interpret reflexive x-self in accordance with principle A, referents can be freely chosen from the discourse. In McDaniel et al’s study children who violate principle A accept x-self in subject and object position. The children in Chien and Wexler’s study accepted non-local antecedents as coreferents for the expression x-self. Avrutin and Cunningham’s findings suggest that for logophoric reflexives children around the age of 4;2 are indifferent with regard to locality relations. Table 12 also shows that even if the children begin to obey principle A, they may still accept non-target structures such as x-self in subject position. The findings suggest that the discourse properties of English x-self have a strong influence on the children’s comprehension of this expression before and after they respond target-like to cases of local binding. The empirical part of this volume focuses on the development of formfunction relationships in the acquisition of German and English intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions. For the English children, the use of the expression x-self as a reflexive pronoun will also be relevant. The topics are addressed in two steps. First, it will be investigated which use type(s) of intensifiers surface in the data of the children, which related agent-sensitive expressions they make use of, and how the form-function pairings

92

The expression x-self in acquisition studies

involving these expressions develop over time. Second, the development of form-function correspondencies in the data of the English children will be analyzed including the expression x-self when used as a reflexive pronoun.

5.1. The emergence of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions The first section of chapter 3 will deal with the encoding of non-nominative means of expressing agency. The aim of this investigation is to provide an account of how children first begin to use intensifiers and related agentsensitive expressions. It will be examined what the children’s first formfunction pairings reveal about their knowledge of how forms and functions correspond in their target language. The comparative approach in this study is aimed at separating the structural factors contributing to the children’s early use of intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions from the more general communicative goals of the children. The following three research questions are derived from the semantic analysis of intensifiers as offered by König (2001) and an analogous approach to the meaning of related agent-sensitive expressions that was developed in chapter 1. (69) Which use types can be identified when intensifiers begin to appear in the production data of children? (70) What is the relation of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions in the production data of children in terms of the expression’s semantic and discourse function? (71) What happens across development? What are the similarities and the differences among the children acquiring German or English as their first language? What are the common and the different trends to be observed in the group of German versus the group of English children? The first question aims at identifying which use types are relevant when children first begin to use intensifiers. In a first step of the analysis, it will be examined if the adnominal, the adverbial exclusive and the adverbial inclusive use type are represented in the data of the children. The second question is devoted to a comparison of intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions with regard to the event types that the respective utterances relate to. The children’s use of adverbial exclusive and adverbial inclusive intensifiers, and the children’s use of agent-sensitive expressions will be examined together with the telicity of the event type that is encoded by the

Research questions

93

utterance containing the respective expression. The last question is directed towards giving an account of how the children’s form-function pairings develop over time. In the third step of the analysis, both intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions will be examined with regard to what function the children encode when using the expressions and how the children relate the expressions to the context in which they occur.

5.2. Intensifiers versus reflexive pronouns The second section of chapter 3 will deal with the relationship between intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. The research questions are based on the results regarding English children’s acquisition of the expression x-self as reported on in previous research. While the focus of these studies was on how children come to comprehend the expression x-self as a reflexive pronoun, it will be examined here what the relation in children’s early productions is between the children’s use of x-self as a reflexive pronoun and their use of the expression as an intensifier. Furthermore, the children’s non-target uses of the expression x-self will be investigated. Focus will be on the question whether the origin of the nontarget use of x-self is better described in terms of the properties of reflexive pronouns, or if it is better described in terms of the use of the expression x-self as an intensifier. (72)

(73)

In which order do intensifiers, the related expression by x-self and reflexive pronouns emerge in the production data of the English children? Is the non-anaphoric use of referential x-self documented in the data of the children and if so, at which age?

To answer the questions presented above the data has to be analyzed for the children’s use of the respective expressions. The study is based on the longitudinal data of six German-speaking and six English-speaking children. The databases that were analyzed in this study and the coding procedure will be described in chapter 3.

Chapter 3 Intensifiers in German and English production data

1. The data and coding procedure This study is based on an analysis of longitudinal production data. The data of six German-speaking and six English-speaking children is analyzed in order to study and compare their use of intensifiers and related agentsensitive expressions. In the following two sections, the corpora will be described and a brief account of the coding procedure will be given.

1.1. The data The data are taken from the CHILDES database (cf. MacWhinney and Snow 1990, MacWhinney 1991). Six L1-English-speaking children and six L1-German-speaking children will be examined in the present study. The six English children are Adam and Sarah of the Brown corpus, Abe of the Kuczaj corpus, Ross of the MacWhinney corpus, Nina of the Suppes corpus and Shem of the Clark corpus. The six German children are Daniel, Julia and Mathias of the Clahsen corpus and Simone, Kerstin and Caroline of the Nijmegen corpus. Below, the age period studied (age in years;months,days) and the number of available recordings per child are listed. Brown corpus

Adam: 2;3,4 - 5;2,0 55 recordings Sarah: 2;3,5 - 5;1,6 136 recordings Kuczaj corpus Abe: 2;4,24 - 5;0,11 210 recordings MacWhinney corpus Ross: 2;6,18 - 6;1,20 42 recordings Suppes corpus Nina: 1;11,16 - 3;3,21 56 recordings Clark corpus Shem:2,6,18 - 5;4,20 40 recordings Clahsen corpus Daniel: 2;9,28 - 3;6,28 10 recordings Julia: 1;11,21 - 2;5,28 7 recordings Mathias 2;9,28 - 3;6,28 10 recordings Nijmegen corpus Simone: 1;9,11 - 4;0,6 74 recordings Kerstin: 1;3,22 - 3;4,6 37 recordings Caroline: 0;10,1 - 2;9,25 196 recordings

The data and coding procedure

95

The choice of the data was motivated by two aspects: age range and size of corpus. Since little is known about the emergence and acquisition of intensifiers, the age span covered by the data was chosen to be as large as possible. The sample includes the data both of very young children and children up to five years old. It was necessary to work with a large pool of data since the use of intensifiers in spontaneous speech is relatively rare. As was already mentioned, the use of intensifiers is largely context-dependent. Although it can be expected that children are interested in using a linguistic means with which they can express the wish either to be included in an action or to exclusively carry out an action, differences stemming from the particular situation and the interaction style of parents and child have to be expected. Finally, availability of the data was a crucial factor. While CHILDES provides large databases for English children, substantial databases of longitudinal production data for German children have largely been absent until recently. The data of Simone, Kerstin and Caroline are now available through CHILDES and were used in this study. At the beginning of the sixties, Brown and his colleagues initiated a longitudinal study of the language development of three English-speaking children. The first recordings of the three children Adam, Eve and Sarah were made when they all were just beginning to produce multi-word utterances. All three children grew up in and around Cambridge, Massachusetts, and were only children at the time of the recording. In the present study, the data of Adam and Sarah were used as a preliminary analysis revealed that in the data of the youngest child, Eve, intensifiers were only documented twice. For Adam and Sarah, recordings began at age 2;3 and lasted up to the beginning of their sixth year of life. The data are transcriptions of tape recordings with context information on important actions or objects that were handled. A detailed description of the original study and the general language development of the three children can be found in Brown (1973). Stan Kuczaj’s son Abe was recorded from age 2;4.24 until 5;0,11. Until the beginning of his fifth year of life, Abe was recorded twice a week for 30 minutes in the home. The last year of the recording contains 30-minute samples taken once a week (Kuczaj 1976a, 1978, 1980). The MacWhinney corpus contains data of his son Ross of whom transcripts are available between the ages of 2;6,18 and 6;1,20. The data of Nina were collected by Patrick Suppes. She was recorded between the age of 1;11,16 and 3;3,21. Additional information can be found in Suppes (1974). The study of the child Shem contains weekly recordings between the age of 2;2,16 and 3;2,2. A total of 40 recordings were made of Shem, who grew up in Palo Alto, California. General information of the

96

Intensifiers in German and English production data

child’s language development can be found in Clark (1978a, 1978b, 1979). The Clahsen data consists of transcripts of monthly recordings of the three siblings Julia, Daniel and Mathias. Julia was recorded between the ages of 1;11 and 2;5 and her twin brothers between the ages of 2;9 and 3;6. The transcripts contain between about 100 and 150 utterances each. The data were originally collected to examine the syntactic development of the three children (cf. Clahsen 1982) and therefore contain almost no context information. The Nijmegen corpus includes the data of three Germanspeaking children Simone, Kerstin and Caroline. The data of his daughter Simone was collected by Max Miller (1976) and the preparation of the corpus was supported by Wolfgang Klein at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen and later by Jürgen Weissenborn at the University of Potsdam. The Nijmegen corpus includes an extensive data collection with almost 35,000 recorded utterances for the child Simone. A short description of the Miller data can be found in Behrens (1993). Additional information is available in studies by Weissenborn and Clahsen (cf. Clahsen 1982, Clahsen and Penke 1992, Verrips and Weissenborn 1992, Weissenborn 1992). In the tables listed below, the number of utterances recorded for each child in a three-month period is given. Table 13. Number of German child utterances in 3-month periods 1;0 1;3 1;6 1;9 2;0 2;3 2;6 2;9 3;0 3;3 3;6 3;9 4;0 Total

Caroline 180 303 424 1.341 2.277 5.155 5.119 5.619

20.418

Simone

640 8.435 7.947 6.010 3.630 2.413 2.248 1.474 1.878 815 35.490

Kerstin

Daniel

Mathias

88 3.058 3.937 4.027 3.694 4.558 2.217 903 1.510 1.127

62 323 308 373

157 401 327 460

25.119

1.066

1.345

Julia

150 320 300

770

The data and coding procedure

97

Table 14. Number of English child utterances in 3-month periods 2;0 2;3 2;6 2;9 3;0 3;3 3;6 3;9 4;0 4;3 4;6 4;9 5;0 5;3 5;6 5;9 6;0 6;3 Total

Adam

Abe

Ross

2.558 4.878 4.637 6.332 5.789 4.985 4.091 2.730 2.490 3.304 2.047 1.774 1.107

1.292 3.390 3.484 3.481 2.759 2.399 1.570 1.345 871 922 917

46.722

22.430

573 1.143 2.964 1.706 2.020 2.229 1.713 1.320 1.437 678 0 604 558 544 993 298 19.780

Nina 4.374 7.686 5.252 2.215 7.377 6.290

Sarah

Shem

1.502 4.107 3.890 3.334 3.704 4.191 2.142 2.582 3.576 3.695 2.800 2.909 213

2.919 4.436 4.814 4.274 1.673

33.194

38.645

18.116

1.2. Coding procedure The data of the twelve children in the study are all available in CHAT format. The children’s utterances appear on separate coding lines and can be extracted using the CLAN program (cf. MacWhinney 1991). All databases were searched for intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions. The utterances were extracted from the corpora together with five preceding and five following utterances to enable an analysis of how the expressions related to the context. For the German children, the expressions selbst/selber and allein as well as von allein/von selbst were collected in separate files. For the English children, utterances with the expressions xself and by x-self were extracted. In the file containing the expression xself, all utterances had to be coded regarding the expressions’ status as a “reflexive pronoun”, “intensifier” or “other”. The expression was coded “reflexive pronoun” if x-self could be replaced by another noun phrase without deteriorating the grammaticality of the utterance, see (1).

98

Intensifiers in German and English production data

(1) a. don’t hurt yourself. b. don’t hurt me.

(Adam, 3,1,0)

The expression was coded “intensifier” if x-self could be replaced by possible paraphrases of intensifiers such as ‘without help/assistance’ or ‘too’, see (2) and (3). (2) a. I will put in dere myself. b. I will put in there without help. (3) a. have some myself b. have some too

(Adam 3;2,0) (Adam 2;10,0)

In the category “other”, utterances with x-self were collected that are direct imitations, repetitions, unanalyzable utterances or non-target uses of the expression x-self that do not represent the use of x-self as a reflexive pronoun or as an intensifier, see (4). For German, no differentiation of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns is necessary as the two are represented by distinct expressions. (4) which one myself would like huh? (Adam 4;3,0) In the first step of the analysis, all instances of German and English intensifiers were coded with regard to which of the three use types the expression represented. Again, possible paraphrases were used for the identification, see (5) and (6). For English, see the examples given above, (2) and (3). (5) a. guck mal hab sie selber durchgemacht. (Simone, 2;10,4) ‚Look, I pushed it through myself’. b. guck mal hab sie ohne fremde Hilfe durchgemacht. ‚Look, I pushed it through without help/assistance’. (6) a. ich hab selber ein(e)s. (Kerstin 2;10,27) ‚I have one myself’. b. ich habe auch eins. ‚I have one too’. If English x-self could be paraphrased by ‘without help/assistance’ and German selbst/selber could be paraphrased by ‘ohne fremde Hilfe’, the expressions were rated as instances of adverbial exclusive intensifiers. If English x-self could be paraphrased by ‘too’ and German selbst/selber

The data and coding procedure

99

could be paraphrased by ‘auch’, the expressions were rated as instances of adverbial inclusive intensifiers. In the second step of the analysis, utterances with intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions were coded with regard to what kind of event type the utterance is relating to, telic (7), atelic (8) or state (9). (7) kann schon allein da runter (Caroline, 2;5,20) ‚Can go down by myself’ (8) leine sitzen (Caroline, 1;12,8) ‘Sit by myself’ (9) die sind allein zu Hause (Simone, 4;0,6) ‚They are home by themselves’ The findings resulting from the analysis as described above will be presented in the next sections following the research questions that were formulated at the end of the previous chapter. First, the identification of the use type that is represented by an intensifier will be relevant. Section 2 of this chapter will report on which of the three use types are represented in the data of the twelve children acquiring German or English as their first language. Second, analyzable utterances with related agent-sensitive expressions will also be taken into account. In section 3, intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions will be discussed in terms of the event type, which is represented by the utterance, and in section 4, intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions will be related to the context in which they occur. Taking the differences in the form-function pairings of English and German intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions as a basis (cf. chapter 1), section 3 and section 4 will be presented from a comparative perspective. The discussion of the results will focus on how the similarities and the differences in the English and German children’s data may result from similar communicative intentions while the target language provides them with different forms. Section 5 is devoted to a possible interaction of reflexive and intensive x-self in the acquisition process of the English children. Non-target uses of x-self are analyzed in section 6 with a focus on non-anaphoric x-self in subject and object position.

100

Intensifiers in German and English production data

2. Three use-types of intensifiers in the data of the children The research question that is relevant for this chapter was formulated at the end of chapter 2 and is repeated here, see (10). (10) Which use types can be identified when intensifiers begin to appear in the production data of children? Tables 15 and 16 show the number of intensifiers produced by the children in the study. In the data of the German and the English children, intensifiers occurred in various numbers. All of the English children produced at least one example of an intensifier. Three of the German children produced a number of utterances with intensifiers while the other three children produced no intensifiers at all. Recall that the three German children Julia, Daniel and Mathias provide the least extensive data collection. Table 15. Intensifiers in the data of the German children German children Total number of intensifiers 1;0 – 1;11 2;0 – 2;11 3;0 – 3;11 4;0 – 4;11

Caroline

Kerstin

Simone

Julia

Daniel

Mathias

25

10

21

0

0

0

067 25 -

0 9 1 -

0 5 16 0

-68 0 0 -

0 0 -

0 -

Table 16. Intensifiers in the data of the English children English children Total number of intensifiers 2;0 – 2;11 3;0 – 3;11 4;0 – 4;11 5;0 – 5;11

Adam

Abe

Ross

Sarah

Nina

Shem

19

8

5

6

1

5

1 6 9 3

0 2 6 0

1 1 3 0

1 1 4 0

1 0 -

4 1 -

Despite the fact that the use of intensifiers is largely discourse dependent and it can therefore not be easily predicted if these expressions are represented in a given data collection, in the case of Julia, Daniel and Mathias it seems reasonable to assume that the absence of intensifiers from

Three use-types of intensifiers in the data of the children

101

their data is an effect of the relatively low number of total recorded utterances. Although the analyses in the present study are, to a great extent, mainly qualitative, it is important to discuss some quantitative aspects, as the data of the twelve children examined here are of a very heterogeneous nature. In section 4 of this chapter, the way in which the number of utterances recorded for each child in a given time span may interact with the number of intensifiers in the data will be discussed. For instance, unless the number of utterances recorded in a three-month period is above 1000, chances for intensifiers to occur seemed very low. This finding is independent of the age of the child at the time of the recording. The number of recorded utterances for Julia, Daniel and Mathias is below 500 in all three-month periods. Although developmental issues will not be addressed at this point, it needs to be mentioned that neither the German nor the English children produced intensifiers before they reached an age of two years. For the English children this is not surprising, as the English corpora examined here do not provide data below an age of 2;0. As a preliminary analysis of English children’s data that include recordings below two years of age revealed, the use of intensifiers is also not regularly documented in the first recorded sessions. No instances are documented in the data of Peter of the Bloom corpus (Bloom et al. 1974, Bloom et al. 1975) and only one example can be found in the data of Eve of the Brown corpus (Brown 1973) who at an age of 1;8,0 produces the reduced form self as an adverbial exclusive intensifier, see (11). (11) Eve jump self Eve jump Cromer.

2.1. Proportions of adnominal, adverbial exclusive and adverbial inclusive intensifiers Generally, it can be observed that in the data of the German and the English children of the present study, intensifiers begin to appear in their third year of life. The majority of English intensifiers is recorded in the children’s fifth year of life (4;0–4;11). For the English children, more extensive recording ceases at age 5;0 in the cases of the four children Adam, Abe, Ross and Sarah, and at 3;3 in the cases of Nina and Shem. For the German children, no data was collected after an age of 4;0 (Simone), 3;6 (Kerstin, Daniel and Mathias) and 2;9 (Caroline). For the German child Julia, data is available between the ages of 2;0 and 2;6. In the following paragraphs,

102

Intensifiers in German and English production data

results regarding the proportions of the three types of intensifiers that are used by the German children between the ages of 2;0 and 4;0 and that are used by the English children between the ages of 2;0 and 5;0 as documented in the data will be discussed. The utterances are examined with regard to the possible paraphrases of the intensifiers in order to categorize them as adnominal, adverbial exclusive, or adverbial inclusive. In the present section, only the more general observations that are relevant for identifying the three use types of intensifiers will be discussed. A more detailed investigation of the individual contexts in which the children use selbst/selber and x-self can be found in section 3 and section 4. 100% 50%

7

24

19

2

0% Caroline adverbial exclusive other

Kerstin

Simone

adverbial inclusive

Figure 2. Use-types of intensifiers in the German children

100% 50%

16

7

1

8

4

1

6

5

Ro ss N in a Sa ra h Sh em

A be

A da

m

0%

adverbial exclusive other

adverbial inclusive

Figure 3. Use-types of intensifiers in the English children As Figure 2 and Figure 3 show, with only one exception, all children predominantly produce intensifiers in the adverbial exclusive function. Other than in the data of the German child Kerstin, intensifiers are rarely

Three use-types of intensifiers in the data of the children

103

documented in the adverbial inclusive function. Adam is the only English child who provides examples of the adverbial inclusive use of an intensifier. Adnominal intensifiers are not attested for any of the children in this study. The only example of the use of an adnominal intensifier in child language that I could find is documented in the Stern data. The Stern data were collected by Clara and William Stern at the beginning of the last century and consist of handwritten diary notes on the development of their three children, Hilde, Günther and Eva. Apart from giving an account of the children’s language development (Stern and Stern 1907, 1928), the diary data also includes information on other areas such as the cognitive, emotional or physical development (cf. Behrens and Deutsch 1991, Behrens, Bittner and Deutsch 1988). Although the diary notes were taken until the children were as old as 13;0 (Hilde), 17;0 (Günther) and 10;0 (Eva), intensifiers are rare. In a letter that was written by the child Günther Stern, an adnominal intensifier is used twice. The letter is addressed to Günther’s former violin teacher, see (12). (12) ‘... Den Bogen muss ich nach innen einbiegen, bei der E-Saite soll ich den Oberarm fast an die Seite anlegen. Die Stunde selber ist ab und zu unangenehm,... [] Grüssen Sie bitte alle Breslauer Freunde, Lehrer und Bekannte, und seien Sie selbst noch einmal herzlich gegrüßt....’ It is an interesting fact to note that the given example is not an account of spoken language, but that it occurs in a somewhat formal letter. According to the diary note, Günther is almost 14;0 years old when he writes the letter. Although this example is not directly relevant here, it shows that in contrast to the children’s use of adverbial intensifiers, their use of adnominal intensifiers might be influenced to a certain degree by register and style. In this case, the very rare occurrence of adnominal intensifiers in the data might be a result of a very restricted applicability of this use type in the language of children. 2.2. Inclusive intensifiers and additive focus particles auch and too At first glance, it might seem implausible why children use intensifiers in the adverbial exclusive function but largely disregard the possibility of using intensifiers in the adverbial inclusive function. For children, it seems as relevant to express the wish to be included in a certain activity as it

104

Intensifiers in German and English production data

seems relevant to express the wish to carry out a certain activity without the interference of another person. A possible explanation for the fact that adverbial inclusive intensifiers hardly occur in the data of the children is that the notion of inclusion can also be achieved by the use of other expressions such as German auch and English too and also. Tables 17 and 18 show that German auch and English too frequently occur in the data of the children. Table 17. German children’s use of auch German children auch

Caroline

Kerstin

Simone

Daniel

Mathias

Julia

771

880

1.666

59

51

46

Table 18. English children’s use of too English children too

Adam

Abe

Ross

Sarah

Nina

Shem

430

519

271

371

333

167

Although the use of these expressions cannot be discussed in depth here, a major difference to adverbial inclusive intensifiers is that the expressions are largely neutral with regard to the notion of contrast in the target systems (cf. chapter 1, 2.2.5.). Auch and too function as additive focus particles that can interact with a greater variety of sentential constituents than adverbial inclusive intensifiers. A further reason for the absence of adverbial inclusive intensifiers in the language of young children can be seen in the fact that the use of these expressions often calls for complex contextual conditions. It was shown in the first chapter that in many cases, adverbial inclusive intensifiers relate to contexts in which the referent the intensifier is associated with has some superior knowledge about some state of affairs or the mental states of others. This kind of context is rare in child language and might also be too complex or irrelevant to be verbally encoded by the children.

2.3. Inclusive intensifiers in contexts of independent agency In the following paragraphs, the rare instances of adverbial inclusive selber/selbst and x-self in the data of the children will be discussed. With regard to the children’s frequently attested use of German auch and English too, the discussion will focus on the question of what the children encode

Three use-types of intensifiers in the data of the children

105

apart from the notion of inclusion, and which contextual conditions are recurrent with the use of adverbial inclusive selber/selbst instead of auch or adverbial inclusive x-self instead of too. 2.3.1. Kerstin’s use of adverbial inclusive selbst/selber Of the German children, Kerstin is the only child who produces a comparatively large amount of the adverbial inclusive use of an intensifier. All seven instances are recorded within one session at age 2;10,27, and relate to four different contexts. The interesting point to note is that of the seven instances, five are construed with the same predicate haben (‘have’) and are of a formulaic character in that variation in the construction is very restricted. The utterance in (13) is recorded three times, (14) includes the additive particle auch (‘too’), (15) the particle schon (‘already’). (13) ich hab selber ein(e)s. ‚I have one myself.’ (14) ja ,ich hab auch selber ein(e)s. ‚Yes, I have one myself.’ (15) ich hab schon selber ein(e)s ‘I already have one myself.’ The remaining two instances are construed with two predicates that also depict mental states, möchten (‘would like’), see (16) and wollen (‘want’), see (17). (16) ach nein, ich möcht’ selber ein(e)s. ‚Oh no, I’d rather have one myself.’ (17) will selber ein. ‘(I) want one myself.’ The object noun phrase ein(e)s variably refers to a slice of bread in (15) and (16), a ballpoint pen in (13) and (14), a sheet of paper in (13) and a cigarette in (17). In all instances, the events that Kerstin’s utterances relate to are atelic, or mental states. Recall that for such an event structure, it is impossible in a majority of cases to arrive at an adverbial exclusive reading of the intensifier. In Kerstin’s data there is one other instance of selber she produces that is most probably also an example for the adverbial inclusive use of an intensifier. However, as the utterance relates to a telic event and

106

Intensifiers in German and English production data

no further unambiguous contextual information is available, the utterance was coded an unclear case that could be interpreted either as adverbial inclusive or as adverbial exclusive, see (18). ach ja, mal selber Hund. ‘Oh yes, draw dog myself.’ mother: male mal’n Hund. ‘Draw a dog now.’ child: ja, ich mal auch mal Hund. ‘Yes, I will draw a dog now.’

(18) child:

(2;10,27)

Apart from the fact that with the use of selber in all examples given above the child Kerstin refers to a situation or a state of affairs in which she is included or in which she wants to be included, two of the four contexts also involve an element of contrast and agency. Although the examples given above refer to mental states, the larger event structures also involve the child Kerstin as an independent agent, see (19). The example includes utterances of the sort listed in (13)-(15). will sie sich auch was zum Schreiben holen? ‚Is she going to get herself a pen too’? mother: ja. ‚Yes’. mother: Kerstin! child: so, ich hab jetzt ein(e)s. […] ‚I have one now’. child: sag nicht danke. ‚(I) don’t say thank you’. child: will auch mal malen. ‚Want to draw too’. child: ich hab selber ein(e)s. […] ‚I have one myself.’ adult: haste selber 'n Kugelschreiber? ‚Have a pen yourself’? child: ja, ich hab auch selber ein(e)s. ‘Yes, I have one myself too’.

(19) adult:

The dialogue in (19) mostly represents Kerstin’s comments while leaving the room, fetching herself a pen and returning to her mother who is already drawing. For an interpretation of the semantic contribution of

Three use-types of intensifiers in the data of the children

107

selber the fact that Kerstin states that she didn’t say thank you when she fetches the pen from the kitchen shows that most probably Kerstin associates some kind of restriction with her use of pens. Since pens can produce very permanent stains, it can be expected that Kerstin’s use of pens is controlled by her parents. A possible interpretation of Kerstin’s behavior is that she usually doesn’t get pens herself but receives them from an adult together with instructions of their proper use. Assuming that Kerstin relates saying thank you to a special kind of transfer of objects, her comment can be interpreted as her being aware of the fact that she is crossing a border. Kerstin’s use of the expression selber therefore relates to a context in which the child’s independent agency is an issue. The fact that simple inclusion is not sufficient for describing the semantic contribution that selber makes in the examples given is especially evident in the last utterance cited in (19) where Kerstin combines selber and auch. As nothing in the transcript indicates that Kerstin is reformulating auch as selber, it must be assumed that the two expressions individually contribute to the utterance’s meaning. On the basis that the expression auch mainly encodes additive inclusion, the expression selber further encodes Kerstin as a central participant, both as an agent fetching a pen and as a possessor when claiming control over the object. A similar situation in which Kerstin uses adverbial inclusive selber is given in (20). Mother and child talk about a slice of bread. (20) mother: komm mal her. ‚come here’. child: achnein, ich moecht selber ein(e)s.[…] ‚no, I want one myself’. child: darf ich? ‚may I’? father: ja, darfste. ‚yes, you may’. mother: hier. ‚here’. child: danke […]. ‚thank you’. mother: komm her. ‚come here’. child: ich hab schon selber ein(e)s. ‘I already have one myself’.

108

Intensifiers in German and English production data

Although the event of eating a slice of bread at breakfast time seems a less restricted activity than using a pen, the situation is somewhat similar in that it becomes clear that Kerstin is expected to ask if she can take a slice of bread instead of just taking one. Contrary to (19) she doesn’t negotiate her own competence in an as obvious manner, but avoids her mother’s instructions. At the beginning of the sequence, Kerstin’s mother asks her to come, but Kerstin doesn’t react. Instead, she debates the transfer of a slice of bread with her father. To some degree, this sequence can be regarded as a manifestation of similar dynamics as the ones observed in (19), since Kerstin involves herself as an agent in a situation in which she is expected to remain passive. Instead of doing what her mother tells her to do, Kerstin changes the expected routine, communicates with her father and avoids her mother’s instructions. The possibility that the last utterance in (20) is an incomplete modal construction in which Kerstin announces that she wants to get herself a slice of bread would require the expression selber to be interpreted as an adverbial exclusive intensifier. No further information is available for such an interpretation and even if it were, the contextual embedding of the expression would remain the same with the utterance ich moecht selber ein(e)s relating to a context in which Kerstin tries to gain some independency in her actions. As will be discussed in more detail in the following sections, with the use of adverbial exclusive selbst/selber, children often reject that an adult carries out a certain task, or that the adult helps the child in carrying out the task. In the examples given above, inclusive selbst cannot directly be used to reject an adult’s involvement in an event. In the larger situational context, Kerstin’s mother is described as the possessor or distributor of something that the child would also like to control. The examples illustrate that Kerstin’s use of selber as an adverbial inclusive intensifier can also function as a rejection of the way in which adults interact with the child. While adverbial exclusive selbst/selber can be used by a child to reject the exclusive agency of an adult in a certain event, adverbial inclusive selbst/selber can be used to reject that an adult is the exclusive possessor or distributor of a certain object. This is not to say that the distinction between adverbial exclusive and adverbial inclusive intensifiers is exclusively dependent on the event structure or the thematic roles of the participants. That this is not the case is evident in examples that combine both the use of an adverbial exclusive intensifier with the use of an adverbial inclusive intensifier, see (21). Although such examples seem awkward and are probably not frequently documented, the important fact is that it is possible

Three use-types of intensifiers in the data of the children

109

to interpret the two instances of an intensifier as independently contributing to the sentence meaning. (21) a. Ich habe selbstincl. selbstexcl. Autos repariert. b. I have myselfincl. repaired cars myselfexcl.. The relevant aspect for the present investigation is that in examples like the ones discussed above, an adverbial inclusive intensifier may be used in situations that are part of a larger event structure in which the status of the child as an independent and competent participant of the discourse is negotiated. An interesting phenomenon in this respect is a verbal routine that children together with their parents or other children engage in. In examples such as (22) and (23), child A characterizes child B as possessing an unfavorable personal trait like being stupid or like starting to cry easily. Child B rejects this characterization by combining an intensifier with the undesired quality. (22) a. A: du bist doof! ‚you are stupid’ b. B: selber doof. ‘stupid yourself’. (23) a. A: Heulsuse! ‘cry-baby’. b. B: selber Heulsuse. ‚cry-baby yourself’. Parallel to the examples of the German child Kerstin, the notion of contrast and rejection seem to be the more important semantic contribution of the intensifier than the notion of inclusion. In the examples (22b) and (23b) both inclusion and exclusion are a possible interpretation. While it is plausible that B does not want to be characterized as being stupid or as starting to cry easily, it is not necessarily the case that this possibility is completely negated. By the use of the expression selber, the characterization of B as being the only one who is stupid or starts to cry easily is rejected. It might even be the case that child B accepts the characterization but wants to express that s/he is not the only one for whom it is true. In the examples given, the intensifier is combined with an adjective or with a noun. In the data of the English children Adam and Abe, two similar examples exist. In (24) and (25) Adam’s and Abe’s mother react to an utterance of their children. The sequences appear to be a verbal

110

Intensifiers in German and English production data

game or routine rather than the negotiation of the child’s and the mother’s personal qualities. (24) child: oh dear mother: oh dear yourself (Adam, 2;11,0) (25) child: hey! child: where’s the chess? child: where’s the cess at? mother: hey yourself! (Abe, 3;1,11) 2.3.2. Adam’s use of adverbial inclusive x-self The last examples to be discussed are the two instances in which the English child Adam uses an intensifier adverbially inclusive. Both instances are produced by Adam in contexts in which the inclusion of a participant regarding some event is relevant and in which the intensifier can be roughly paraphrased by too. In (26), Adam wants to be included in the activity of graham cracker eating and in (27) Adam, too, hopes that something is the case. (26) child: where mine my graham cracker le(t) me have one. mother: no Adam you take one. child: take twos. mother: alright. mother: take two. child: I want have some. child: have some myself. mother: yes you have some yourself. (Adam, 2;10,0) (27) adult: can you understand him? adult: I can understand myself. mother: I hope so. child: I hope so myself too. (Adam, 3;6,0) Both adverbial inclusive intensifiers occur together with predicates that depict mental states. The interesting aspect of the use of myself in (26) is that parallel to Kerstin’s use of the adverbial inclusive intensifier, the notion of contrast is relevant. The situation in (26) is that Adam is involved in the telic event of helping himself to crackers both as an agent and as a recipient at the same time. As he uses a mental state predicate in his

Three use-types of intensifiers in the data of the children

111

utterance together with the expression myself, the intensifier cannot be associated with an agentive subject-referent. Despite this fact and similar to Kerstin, Adam uses the expression in association with the subject referent in a situation in which he is trying to gain some control of what is happening. He helps himself to crackers and tries to prevent his mother from controlling his action. Compared to the instances of Kerstin’s use of inclusive selber, the dynamics in the situation are very similar. Supposing that Adam’s mother usually decides how many crackers Adam is having, a part of the semantic contribution of the inclusive intensifier in (26) compared to the same sequence in which myself is missing, is that Adam contrasts himself with his mother. Without myself Adam’s utterance is more like a request. By the use of myself together with the contextual information that Adam is helping himself to crackers, the mother’s role of being in control of the crackers is challenged. In the example given in (27) the feature of contrast and negotiation of the child’s competence is less important. Although Adam also uses a mental state predicate together with the intensifier, in comparison to (27) the event is not structured in a way that Adam is also involved as an agent. The fact that Adam does not negotiate his own involvement in the event in (27) distinguishes this instance from all other instances of the children’s use of an adverbial inclusive intensifier. It also seems difficult to infer what Adam’s use of myself in the given context contributes to the utterance’s meaning that his use of too in the same utterance does not. The interpretation is further complicated by the fact that the previous utterance by his mother is somewhat cynical in a way that Adam cannot be expected to understand. In this respect, the use of adverbial inclusive myself in (26) appears more adult-like than all other instances as it relates to a complex context involving knowledge about the mental states and attitudes of others. The most likely interpretation is that Adam is using the expression in a somewhat formulaic manner including himself in a state of affairs or a communicational routine that he normally associates with adults. One instance in the data of Adam is ambiguous between an adverbial inclusive and an adverbial exclusive reading. It relates to a telic event occurring within a context that provides no further information for either interpretation. (28) I want a nut to crack myself

(Adam, 3;8,0)

In (28) it is impossible to decide whether the expression is used as an adverbial inclusive or an adverbial exclusive intensifier. Although the event

112

Intensifiers in German and English production data

is telic and a change-of-state predicate is used, it is unclear what Adam means as he is looking at a picture book and it is equally possible that he wants to crack a nut just as the person in the picture or that he wants a nut which he instead of somebody else can crack. 2.3.3. Summary Both the German and the English children use intensifiers predominantly in contexts that allow an adverbial exclusive interpretation of the expression. In the rare instances in which intensifiers are used in the adverbial inclusive function, it is often possible to identify contrasting participants in terms of who is in control of a given action. In these contexts, the children are involved as agents in the larger event structure. The use of adverbial inclusive intensifiers can in many cases be associated with the children’s wish to gain control or their negotiation of active participation in a given event. The adnominal use of intensifiers is not attested in the language of the children in the study. 3. Intensifiers versus related agent-sensitive expressions This section is devoted to the second research question, see (29). (29) What is the relation of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions in the production data of children in terms of the expression’s semantic and discourse function? The second research question examines the relation of the use of intensifiers to the use of related agent-sensitive expressions together with their semantic function and the contexts in which they appear. The analysis is based on the procedure as described at the beginning of this chapter. As demonstrated in more detail in chapter 1, the intensifiers German selbst/selber and English x-self are closely related to the adverbial exclusive use of German allein and English by x-self. Below, two reduced versions of Table 4 and Table 5 (cf. chapter 1) are given. The discussion of the results in this section is oriented towards the regularities as illustrated in Table 19 and Table 20.

Intensifiers versus related agent-sensitive expressions

113

Table 19. Selbst/selber and allein in German TELIC exclusive/ inclusive Er hat den Garten selbst umgegraben.

ATELIC inclusive/ exclusive Sie schwimmt selbst.

STATE inclusive Sie hat selbst Familie.

exclusive/predicative Er hat den Garten allein umgegraben.

predicative/exclusive Sie fährt jeden Tag allein Auto.

predicative Sie ist allein im Kino.

Table 20. x-self and by x-self in English TELIC exclusive/ inclusive He dug up the garden himself.

ATELIC inclusive/ exclusive She swims herself.

STATE inclusive She has a family herself.

exclusive/ predicative He dug up the garden by himself.

predicative/exclusive She swims by herself.

predicative She is by herself.

Table 19 and Table 20 illustrate the most relevant use types of the German expressions selbst/selber and allein and the English expressions xself and by x-self. In the case of a telic event structure, the intensifiers selbst/selber and x-self tend to be interpreted as adverbial exclusive unless complex contextual conditions force an adverbial inclusive interpretation. Recall from chapter 1 that the latter scenario is more likely if the referent of the object noun phrase is non-individuated, which is not the case in the example given here. In sentences with the expressions allein or by x-self and a telic event structure, both an adverbial exclusive and a predicative interpretation are possible. In many cases, such sentences are ambiguous between the two readings or it is determined by the semantic properties of the predicate which of the two interpretations is preferred. The expressions selbst/selber and x-self in sentences with an atelic event structure tend to be interpreted as instances of an adverbial inclusive intensifier in adultoriented speech. Here, a complex context is usually necessary to arrive at an adverbial exclusive interpretation of the intensifier. In child-directed speech the interpretation of such sentences is influenced by assumptions about the child’s non-linguistic development. Thus an exclusive interpretation of selbst/selber and x-self is licenced in a wider variety of contexts. If sentences depict states, all four expressions cannot be interpreted as adverbial exclusive, selbst/selber and x-self are adverbial

114

Intensifiers in German and English production data

inclusive intensifiers in these instances, the expressions allein and by x-self are adverbs with the meaning ‘alone’ or ‘without company’. The following two sections provide a discussion of the results relevant to the question stated in (29). The data of the six German and the six English children will be discussed with regard to their use of these expressions.

3.1. The German children In the data of the German children, the expression allein occurred in more instances than the expression selbst/selber. Apart from the child Kerstin, all children produce more analyzable utterances containing the expression allein than they do containing the expression selbst/selber, see Table 21. Even in the data of the three children Julia, Daniel and Mathias, who produce no analyzable utterances with selbst/selber, a small number of productions with allein are documented. Table 21. Total number of selbst/selber and allein selbst/selber allein

Caroline 25 46

Kerstin 10 8

Simone 21 68

Julia 0 1

Daniel 0 4

Mathias 0 2

It was shown in the last section that in the children’s data, the use of the intensifier selbst/selber is mainly restricted to the adverbial exclusive function. Therefore, an obvious question to ask is whether the children’s use of the expression allein is also restricted to a limited number of contexts, or if the children use allein multifunctionally both in the adverbial exclusive function and as an adverb. In the following paragraphs, the individual children’s use of the expression allein will be compared to their use of the intensifier selbst/selber with regard to the event type that the relevant utterances relate to. The three German children Caroline, Kerstin and Simone produced both selbst/selber and allein and will be discussed in more detail than the three German children Julia, Daniel and Mathias, who used only the expression allein in a few instances.

Intensifiers versus related agent-sensitive expressions

115

3.1.1. Caroline: selbst/selber and allein Table 22 shows that in the data of the German child Caroline, there is no obvious functional distinction between the child’s use of the expression allein and her use of the expression selbst/selber. Table 22. Caroline: selbst/selber and allein telic selber

allein total

excl. 21

incl. 0

excl. 2

atelic incl. 1

state incl. 0

pred. 0 0

excl. 10 12

pred. 1 2

pred. 0 0

other

total

1

25

2 3

4469 69

Both expressions are mainly used in the adverbial exclusive function. In only one example allein is used predicative as an adverb. Comparable to the expression selber/selbst, utterances with the expression allein relate to telic events in most instances. When relating to atelic events, allein just as selbst/selber is also used in the adverbial exclusive function. Without further information on the contextual embedding of the two expressions in the individual contexts, it seems that Caroline is using the two expressions much in the same way. A question that will be addressed in the next section concerns developmental aspects, such as whether the child starts with one expression and only later begins to use the other expression or if both expressions are present from the beginning. Caroline uses selbst/selber only once in the adverbial inclusive function and hardly uses allein in the predicative function. The one instance in which allein is used as an adverb is in an utterance which relates to an atelic event. In the adult system, there is a tendency to interpret allein in utterances relating to atelic events as predicative rather than as adverbial exclusive. The interesting aspect of Caroline’s use of allein and selbst/selber is that although in the adult system an adverbial exclusive interpretation of selbst/selber and allein is usually dispreferred in utterances realizing atelic event structures, this is how the child uses the expression in the majority of cases. It was argued in chapter 1 that when interpreting the semantic contribution of selbst/selber in the adverbial exclusive function, an age effect can occur. Subtle differences can be observed in identical sentences when the referent of the noun phrase the intensifier interacts with is a child

116

Intensifiers in German and English production data

versus an adult. The age of the referent influences not only which contexts are considered plausible for the use of the expression, but also influences the assumptions made about the competence of the referent of the noun phrase. Differences in the interpretation of selbst/selber are based on the fact that the knowledge of a young child still being in the process of becoming an independent agent interacts with the semantic contribution of the expression. Adverbial exclusive x-self when in association with an adult referent, can relate both to anti-assistive and anti-delegative contexts; the competence of the referent regarding the given action is not implicitly challenged or negotiated. The same sentences with a child as referent can also relate to anti-assistive contexts and to autonomous70 rather than antidelegative contexts, but the sentences include an implicit statement about the competence of the child. A similar observation can be made for the use of the German expression allein or the intensifier selbst/selber in sentences with an atelic event structure, see (30) (30) a. Susanne schwimmt selber. ‚Susan swims herself’. b. Susanne schwimmt allein. ‚Susan swims by herself’. If the referent of the subject noun phrase in (30) is an adult, there is a tendency to interpret the use of selbst/selber in (30a) as adverbial inclusive. Accordingly, the expression allein in (30b) is interpreted predicative, meaning ‘without company’ rather than adverbial exclusive, meaning ‘without help/assistance’. On the other hand, if the subject noun phrase Susanne has a child as referent, both selber and allein are more naturally interpreted as adverbial exclusive. The knowledge that a child is still developing all kinds of skills motivates the difference in the interpretation of the semantic effect of allein and selbst/selber in such sentences. The issue of the child’s competence is subtly reflected in the alternative contexts that the intensifier relates to. The semantic effect of herself in a sentence like (31) is a negation of the possibility that the child received help in the action or that someone else completed the action for the child. (31) Susan ties her shoes herself. The difference in interpretation resulting from either an adult or a child as referent of the subject noun phrase is based on the fact that unless an adult is specifically impaired, it seems unlikely to use selber and allein

Intensifiers versus related agent-sensitive expressions

117

adverbial exclusive given an atelic event structure. It will be discussed in more detail in the next section that for a child, it is a normal part of his/her development to be assisted in atelic activities such as swimming, sitting, running and that the use of selber and allein reflects this fact. For adults, assistance in atelic activities is rather a sign of unexpected incompetence. Thus the adverbial exclusive interpretation of the expression in these instances is strongly dispreferred unless further contextual information suggests the opposite. 3.1.2. Kerstin: selbst/selber and allein Of the three children Caroline, Kerstin and Simone, Kerstin is the child who produces the fewest instances of both the expression selbst/selber and allein. Table 23. Kerstin: selbst/selber and allein selber

excl. 2

telic incl. 0

excl. 0

atelic incl. 0

state incl. 7

allein total

excl. 5 7

pred. 0 0

excl. 0 0

pred. 0 0

pred. 0 7

other

total

1

10

2 3

7 17

The high number of instances in which Kerstin uses selber as an adverbial inclusive intensifier is unique among the twelve children and was already discussed in the previous section. It seems an interesting fact to note that despite Kerstin’s relatively high number of adverbial inclusive selber, the instances do not represent cases in which adverbial inclusive selber relates to an atelic event structure, but Kerstin mainly uses the expression in sentences that depict states. The remainder of the uses of selbst/selber and allein are consistent with the results of the German child Caroline; Kerstin produces both adverbial exclusive selbst/selber and adverbial exclusive allein in sentences with a telic event structure.

118

Intensifiers in German and English production data

3.1.3. Simone: selbst/selber and allein The last German child to be discussed who produces both the expression selbst/selber and allein is Simone. Table 24 shows that similar to the data of the child Caroline, there does not seem to be an obvious functional distinction between the child’s use of the expression selbst/selber and her use of the expression allein. Both expressions are mainly used in the adverbial exclusive function. Contrary to Caroline, Simone does not relate adverbial exclusive selbst/selber to atelic events. When using allein in its predicative function, Simone avoids sentences with a telic event structure. Rather, the adverb allein is used in utterances that depict either atelic events or states. Table 24. Simone: selbst/selber and allein telic

atelic incl.

selber

excl. 19

allein total

excl. 45 64

pred. 0 0

excl. excl. 6 6

incl. pred. 3 3

state incl. 1 pred. 5 6

other

total

1

21

6 7

6871 89

3.1.4. Julia, Daniel and Mathias: allein Before turning to a discussion of the English children’s use of the expressions x-self and by x-self, the other three German children’s use of allein will be briefly discussed. Although the three German children Julia, Daniel and Mathias produced only a total of seven analyzable utterances with allein, the general impression of their use of the expression is similar to that of the three children Caroline, Kerstin and Simone. Julia, Daniel and Mathias use allein in the adverbial exclusive function, mainly when the utterances relate to telic events. Their data does not include the use of allein in the predicative function. Table 25. Julia, Daniel and Mathias: allein allein

telic excl. 5

pred.

atelic excl. 2

pred.

state pred.

other

total 7

Intensifiers versus related agent-sensitive expressions

119

3.1.5. Summary The German children make use of both the expression selbst/selber and allein predominantly in the adverbial exclusive function irrespective of the event type the utterance relates to. There are only a few examples in which selbst/selber is used as an adverbial inclusive intensifier and in which allein is used as an adverb. From a functional perspective, the two most interesting aspects of the results are, first, the children’s frequent use of adverbial exclusive selbst/selber and adverbial exclusive allein when relating to atelic events. Second, despite the fact that selbst/selber occurs in fewer instances than does allein, there is no obvious functional distinction between the uses of the two expressions. Apart from the fact that selbst/selber is occasionally used as an adverbial inclusive intensifier and allein as an adverb, the functions that the two expressions serve in the language of the children seem rather parallel at first sight.

3.2. The English children In the following section, the English children’s use of the expression x-self in relation to the children’s use of the expression by x-self will be discussed. Similar to the German children, the majority of the English children used the expression by x-self in more instances than the expression x-self, see Table 26. Table 26. Total number of x-self and by x-self x-self by x-self

Adam 19 39

Abe 8 38

Ross 5 21

Sarah 6 3

Nina 1 18

Shem 5 16

It was shown that both the German and the English children use intensifiers predominantly in the adverbial exclusive function. For the German children this is also true for the expression allein; most productions of this expression are not predicative but adverbial exclusive. In the following paragraphs, the six English children will be discussed in two sets of three paying special attention to the children’s use of by x-self. The three children Ross, Nina and Shem are discussed together as their results are very similar and comparable to those of the German child Simone. The results of Adam, Abe and Sarah are more heterogeneous in that these children make use of more functions of the expressions x-self and by x-self

120

Intensifiers in German and English production data

than do Ross, Nina and Shem. As the functional realm of German selbst/selber and allein and English x-self and by x-self is very similar, the discussion will focus on those aspects in which the English children display different behavior in comparison the German children. 3.2.1. Ross, Nina and Shem: x-self and by x-self The three English children Ross, Nina and Shem use both the intensifier xself and the related agent-sensitive expression by x-self mainly in the adverbial exclusive function and in utterances that relate to telic events. This is similar to Simone, who uses the intensifier selbst/selber and the related expression allein mainly in the adverbial exclusive function in sentences that depict telic events. Like Simone when producing utterances with allein, Ross, Nina and Shem also make use of the adverbial exclusive function when they relate utterances with by x-self to atelic events. Table 27. Ross, Nina and Shem: x-self and by x-self telic Ross x-self by x-self Nina x-self by x-self Shem x-self by x-self

excl. 4 excl. 14 excl. 1 excl. 7 excl. 5 excl. 11

incl. 0 pred. 0 incl. 0 pred. 0 incl. 0 pred. 0

excl. 0 excl. 5 excl. 0 excl. 7 excl. 0 excl. 1

atelic incl. 0 pred. 0 incl. 0 pred. 3 incl. 0 pred. 1

state incl. 0 pred. 0 incl. 0 pred. 0 incl. 0 pred. 0

other

total

1

5

1

2072

0

1

1

18

0

5

1

1473

Only some examples with predicative by x-self relating to atelic events are documented in the data of Nina and Shem. The three children do not produce utterances with the intensifier x-self relating to atelic events, neither in the adverbial exclusive nor in the adverbial inclusive function. As was already mentioned before, the time spans covered by the recordings are different for the three children. For the two youngest English children Nina and Shem, recordings start at the beginning of their third year of life and end when they reach an age of 3;3. For Ross, the recorded sessions start when he is two and a half years old. More extensive recordings stop at the

Intensifiers versus related agent-sensitive expressions

121

end of his fifth year of life. In the section 4 of this chapter, the above results will be discussed in relation to the age at which the individual expressions begin to appear in the data. As for the German data, there is no indication that the English children make a functional distinction between the two expressions x-self and by x-self. 3.2.2. Adam, Abe and Sarah: x-self and by x-self The second set of three children to be discussed here are Adam, Abe and Sarah. Apart from the fact that the two children Adam and Abe produce a greater total number of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions, the results as illustrated in Table 28 are very similar to those of all other children discussed so far. The expressions x-self and by x-self are mainly used in the adverbial exclusive function. But in contrast to Ross, Nina and Shem, the three children Adam, Abe and Sarah use the intensifier also in utterances relating to atelic event structures. Table 28. Adam: x-self and by x-self telic Adam x-self by x-self Abe x-self by x-self Sarah x-self by x-self

excl. 15 excl. 18 excl. 7 excl. 15 excl. 4 excl. 3

atelic incl. 0 pred. 1 incl. 0 pred. 0 incl. 0 pred. 0

excl. 1 excl. 1 excl. 1 excl. 2 excl. 2 excl. 0

incl. 0 pred. 1 incl. 0 pred. 13 incl. 0 pred. 0

state incl. 2 pred. 0 incl. 0 pred. 3 incl. 0 pred. 0

other

total

1

19

0

2174

0

8

4

37

0

6

0

3

The data of the child Adam includes a large number of instances with by itself and by themselves used in the anti-causative function. These instances are not included in Table 28 and will be discussed in the next section. Abe is the only child who not only produces many instances with predicative by x-self but also more instances of predicative by x-self in utterances relating to atelic events than instances with adverbial exclusive by x-self in utterances relating to the same kind of event structure. As the data of the other children do not include many examples of the predicative use of by x-

122

Intensifiers in German and English production data

self, Abe is the only child for whom a functional distinction between the use of adverbial exclusive x-self and predicative by x-self might be shown to be relevant at some age. Although Sarah’s data includes only a small number of utterances with x-self and by x-self, the pattern is similar to the other children. There is a tendency to link agent-sensitive expressions to telic event structures and encode an adverbial exclusive function. 3.2.3. Summary The English children’s use of the intensifier x-self and the expression by xself is largely similar to the way in which the German children make use of the German intensifier selbst/selber and the related expression allein. Most instances are documented in utterances relating to telic event structures. The majority of uses of the English intensifier x-self represent the adverbial exclusive use type. On the whole, English children seem to use the intensifier in proportionally less instances than the German children. The English child Adam uses the expression by itself in a large number of instances and the English child Abe produces a relatively large number of predicative by x-self which tends to occur in utterances that depict either atelic events or states. The majority of both English and German children are very similar in their distribution of the intensifiers selbst/selber and x-self and the related expressions allein and by x-self. Despite the fact that the data are very heterogeneous and despite the fact the total numbers of are low, the results are similar in that all children but the German child Kerstin use intensifiers mainly in the adverbial exclusive function. The discussion of the children’s use of adverbial inclusive intensifiers has shown that this function can also have some relevance in the language of young children when negotiating their competence to act independently. Many of the instances displayed some affinity to conditions which are rather characteristic for the adverbial exclusive use of intensifiers. The agent-sensitive expressions allein and by x-self are also used mainly in the adverbial exclusive function by all children. Contrary to positions in which it is claimed that historical processes of language change are reflected in the way children acquire their first language (e.g. Wurzel 1984), there is no indication in the data that the predicative use of allein is attested earlier or more frequently than the adverbial exclusive use of the expression. In the following section, developmental issues such as the first formfunction pairings and the subsequent use of these forms will be addressed.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

123

As there is no obvious functional distinction between the German and the English children’s use of the two kinds of expression regarding use types, the contexts in which the expressions appear will be analyzed with regard to the question if there is a more subtle functional distinction in the contexts in which the respective utterances occur. For instance, do the utterances display a tendency to include one expression rather than the other in anti-assistive versus autonomous contexts? The next section will first give a short overview of the quantitative aspects of the data. The total number of recorded utterances per child and in a given time period seems a necessary basis for the interpretation of the presence versus the absence of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions in the data of the children. 4. The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency This section is devoted to the third research question, see (31). (31) What happens across development? What are the similarities and the differences among the children acquiring German or English as their first language? What are the common and the different trends to be observed in the group of German versus the group of English children? The children’s use of the four expressions as discussed in the previous two sections will be examined following the order of their appearance in the data of the children. First, the German children’s use of the expression allein will be discussed followed by a discussion of the children’s use of the German intensifier. Second, an account of the English children’s use of the agent-sensitive expression by x-self and the children’s use of the English intensifier will be given.

4.1. Quantitative considerations The analysis will be based on three-month periods. Due to differences in the time span recorded, the total number of recorded utterances and also the number and length of the recordings in each three-month interval, no quantitative comparisons can be made between the individual children.

124

Intensifiers in German and English production data

Within the data of each child, it is possible, however, to compare the relative number of instances with which the expressions occurred. One aspect regarding the interaction of the total number of recorded child utterances in a given three-month period with the number of intensifiers produced by the children was already mentioned in the previous section. Unless more than 1000 utterances per child occur within three months of recording, chances are very low that intensifiers are documented in the data. Table 29 and Table 30 give the number of child utterances recorded in a three-month period followed by the number of analyzable instances in which an intensifier was used. Three-month periods with less than 500 child utterances and three-month periods with between 500 and 1000 child utterances are shaded in gray. Table 29. English intensifiers and number of utterances in 3-month periods 2;0 2;3 2;6 2;9 3;0 3;3 3;6 3;9 4;0 4;3 4;6 4;9 5;0 5;3 5;6 5;9 6;0 6;3

Adam

Abe

Ross

0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 5 3 3 0

0 0 1 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 0

0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

573 1.143 2.964 1.706 2.020 2.229 1.713 1.320 1.437 678

0 0 0 0 0

604 558 544 993 298

2.558 4.878 4.637 6.332 5.789 4.985 4.091 2.730 2.490 3.304 2.047 1.774 1.107

1.292 3.390 3.484 3.481 2.759 2.399 1.570 1.345 871 922 917

Nina 0 4.374 1 7.686 0 5.252 0 2.215 0 7.377 0 6.290

Sarah

Shem

0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0

1 2 1 1 0

1.502 4.107 3.890 3.334 3.704 4.191 2.142 2.582 3.576 3.695 2.800 2.909 213

2.919 4.436 4.814 4.274 1.673

As Tables 29 and 30 show, there is an interaction between a relatively low number of utterances in a three-month period and the absence of intensifiers. A certain number of recorded utterances seems to be a necessary basis for intensifiers to occur. For instance, there are seventeen three-month periods in which the German and the English children produced less than 500 utterances. In all seventeen periods, no intensifiers were used. There is a total of twelve three-month periods in which the

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

125

German and the English children produced between 500 and 1000 utterances, only in one of these three-month periods one example of an intensifier is documented. Intensifiers more regularly appear in three-month periods that have more than 1000 recorded child utterances. It seems that intensifiers which are generally represented by low numbers in spoken discourse, occur in child data only if very specific contextual conditions are met. Given the semantics of intensifiers and related expressions and the preference of children to refer to the ‘here and now’, competing agents involved in the same action are a necessary basis for these expressions to occur. Thus the recordings need to capture a longer stretch of discourse in which these dynamics can develop and in which the child is willing to make verbal reference. In some cases, like that of the German child Caroline, a low number of utterances and the absence of intensifiers can be explained by the low age of the child. As was already mentioned, there is no indication in the data analyzed in the present study that children use intensifiers before they enter their third year of life. Naturally, a low number of utterances in the first recordings must be interpreted as a sign of the early stages or the onset of language development in which generally few utterances are produced. Table 30. German intensifiers and number of utterances in 3-month periods 1;0 1;3 1;6 1;9 2;0 2;3 2;6 2;9 3;0 3;3 3;6 3;9 4;0

Caroline 0 180 0 303 0 424 0 1.341 0 2.277 1 5.155 15 5.119 9 5.619

Simone

0 2 0 0 3 5 8 1 2 0

640 8.435 7.947 6.010 3.630 2.413 2.248 1.474 1.878 815

Kerstin 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 1 0

88 3.058 3.937 4.027 3.694 4.558 2.217 903 1.510 1.127

Daniel

Mathias

Julia

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

62 323 308 373

0 0 0 0

150 320 300

157 401 327 460

4.2. The German children’s use of allein: Caroline In this section, an account of the German children’s use of allein will be given. The three children Caroline, Kerstin and Simone will be discussed

126

Intensifiers in German and English production data

separately, the three children Julia, Daniel and Mathias will be discussed together as they only produce a few examples of the expression allein (cf. previous section). Recordings of the German child Caroline exist for the period between her age of 0:10,01 and 2;9,25. As was already mentioned in the previous section, Caroline produces a total of 46 analyzable utterances with allein. Only in one instance does Caroline use allein in the predicative function; all other instances document the adverbial exclusive use of the expression allein. Table 31. Caroline’s use of allein 0;101;0 0

1;11;3 0

1;41;6 0

1;71;9 7

1;102;0 6

2;12;3 7

2;42;6 22

2;72;9 4

total 4675

4.2.1. Caroline’s use of allein: 0;10–1;9 As Table 31 shows, there are no recorded instances of Caroline’s use of the expression allein in the first three three-month periods. The first instance occurs when Caroline reaches an age of 1;8,8. In this three-month period (1;7–1;9) Caroline produces a total of seven utterances that contain a form of allein. In six instances Caroline uses the reduced form leine, in one instance she uses the reduced form lein. All seven utterances are subjectand verbless, in one of the examples Caroline uses the expression together with a negation. Although the seven utterances occur in five different sessions, one main context for the use of allein can be identified. In the majority of cases, Caroline’s family is having breakfast as she uses lein/leine to decline assistance when trying to spread butter or honey on a slice of bread, see (32)–(35). (32) mother: so Caroline soll ich dis jetzt mal machen mit der Butter hm? ‚now, Caroline, shall I spread the butter for you’? child: nei leine. (1;9,26) ,no, by myself’. (33) mother: soll ich dir den Honig draufmachen? ‚shall I put honey on it’? child: aeh leine Mami. (1;9,27) ‚mh, by myself, mummy’. (34) mother: warte mal ich muss es dir klein machen Caroline.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

127

‚wait a second, I have to cut it up for you, Caroline’. mm. ‘mh’. mother: ne [:nein]? ‚no?’ mother: Mund zu, Mund zu, Mund zu. ‚close your mouth’. child: mh leine Mami. (1;9,27) ‚mh, by myself, mummy’. (35) child: Messer, Messer ma. ‚knife, knife’. mother: ich geb (e)s dir. ‚I’ll give it to you’. child: aeh nei lein. (1;9,29) ‘aeh, no, by myself’. child:

In two other examples, Caroline is trying to pour some hot liquid, see (36), or is drawing a ball, see (37). (36) mother: soll ich dir mal helfen? ‚shall I help you’? child: ne m leine leine ha. (1;9,29) ‚no, mh, by myself’. (37) mother: soll ich nochmal (eine)n Ball malen? ‚shall I draw a ball again’? child: nein? ,no’? mother: schau mal so rund herum. ‘look, like this’. child: leine. (1;8,27) ‘by myself’. In all examples given above, Caroline uses the expression alleine to decline assistance in situations which are difficult to handle and somewhat dangerous for a child of her age. All instances are preceded by Caroline’s mother either asking if Caroline wants to be helped, or by Caroline’s mother stating what she wants to do to help Caroline. With use of the expression allein, Caroline negates her mother’s involvement in the activity and claims agency for herself. In one remaining instance, Caroline comments on going down a slide by herself, see (38).

128

Intensifiers in German and English production data

(38) mother: bist du auf der Rutsche gerutscht? ‚did you slide down’? child: ja. ‚yes.’ mother: alleine oder mit dem Papi? [...] ‚by yourself or with daddy’? child : ja.. ‘yes’. mother: wirklich? ‘really’? child: leine deine. (1;8,8) ‘by myself’. In (38) the use of leine relates to an anti-assistive context, contrasting Caroline going down the slide together with her father with Caroline sliding down without him. Here, the use of the expression is not a rejection of help. Rather Caroline comments on an ability that she is proud of. In this example allein is not produced completely spontaneous by Caroline as her mother uses the expression in the preceding utterances. Caroline’s first use of the German expression allein is adverbial exclusive and occurs in anti-assistive contexts. In the majority of instances, the expression is used to reject an adult’s involvement in an activity, the child demands active participation in the event. All utterances relate to activities that children have to learn to carry out independently. Although drawing seems a more adequate activity for a young child than using a knife or pouring hot liquid, the dynamics of the situations are similar in that Caroline’s use of alleine is preceded by an unwanted offer of help or interference by Caroline’s mother. 4.2.2. Caroline’s use of allein: 1;10–2;0. In the following three-month period, Caroline produces another six utterances with a form of allein, four of them are the reduced form leine, two are the target form alleine. Two of the utterances are more complex in that alleine is combined with a verb, sitzen (‘sit’), or a pronominal selfreference ich (‘I’). The six utterances are documented in four different sessions. In this three-month period, only one of the examples is produced in the context of a meal, Caroline comments on fixing her bib by herself, see (39).

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

129

(39) mother: machst du dir mal das Laetzchen dir um! ‚can you put on your bib’? mother: kannst du dis [= das]? ‚can you do that’? child: dassen um. ‚that on’. child: Laetzchen ummachen [...] Laetzchen machen. ‚put on bib, put bib’. child: alleine. (1;11,8) ‘by myself’. Caroline produces the expression alleine in a context that is not as clearly a rejection of help as most of the examples discussed so far. Caroline’s mother tells her to put on a bib by herself, but immediately asks if Caroline can do it and thereby implies that she is willing to help. The main difference to the examples discussed above is that Caroline comments on her involvement in an action that is initiated by her mother. Although an offer of help is implicit in the mother’s question, Caroline’s mother suggests that Caroline ties the bib herself. Of the six instances of allein in this three-month period, only one is a direct rejection of help, see (40), Caroline refuses to have her nose wiped. (40) mother: soll(e)n wir mal die Nase putzen? ‚shall we wipe your nose’? child: nein leine. (2;0,10) ‘no, by myself’. The three remaining utterances occur in the contexts of sitting, running and singing, see (41)–(43). leine sitzen. ‚sit by myself’. mother: du willst alleine sitzen? ‚you want to sit by yourself’? mother: nich(t) auf meinem Schoss? ‚not on my lap’? (42) child: anlaufen. ‚come running.’ mother: wie bitte was sagst du? ,sorry, what did you say’? (41) child:

(1;11,8)

130

Intensifiers in German and English production data

leine. ‚by myself’? mother: machst dus [: du das] alleine? ‚are you doing it by yourself’? mother: dann zeige mal! [...] ‚then show me’! child: 0. %act: kommt angelaufen. (1;11,17) comes running. (43) mother: Sonne Mond und Sterne brenne aus mein Licht. ‚sun, moon and stars, my candle is burning’. child: auf ein Lich. ‚candle is burning’. child: ich allein ich alleine. ‚I by myself I by myself’. child: Sonne Mond und Sterne benne aus sa nicht. (2;0,23) ‚sun, moon and stars, candle is burning’. child:

In contrast to all utterances discussed so far which all relate to telic events with a clear end-state, the above utterances relate to atelic event structures. It was mentioned in the previous section that the interpretation of the expression allein is dependent on whether the referent associated with the expression is an adult or a child. The fact that the utterances cited above are produced by a child in a typical child-oriented setting licenses an interpretation of the expression allein as adverbial exclusive, Caroline declines her mother’s assistance in the act of sitting, running or singing. At an age of almost two years Caroline is most probably able to sit by herself and she insists on doing so. In (42) she insists on running fast through the corridor, allein here relates to alternative contexts in which Caroline is running while holding her mother’s hand or the like. In (43) a possible contrastive context is one in which mother and child are singing together. The interesting difference of these examples to ones dominant in the previous three months is that Caroline uses allein not only as a rejection but as a prevention of assistance. Although the contexts are also anti-assistive in that a joint activity is negated, there is no indication in the utterances that Caroline’s mother is actively interfering or planning to do so.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

131

4.2.3. Caroline’s use of allein: 2;1–2;3 Between the ages of 2;1 and 2;3 Caroline produces another seven utterances with a form of allein. The majority of the forms used is still leine, which occurred five times. The target form allein/alleine is used two times. The seven utterances are produced in six different recorded sessions. Some of the examples are syntactically more complex in that three involve both a verb form kann (‘can’) and the personal pronoun ich (‘I’). Another three are a combination of allein and a verb form like macht (‘do.3SG’) or springen (‘jump.INF’). Four of the utterances documented in this period are produced by Caroline in the context of her jumping. It is not always clear if Caroline is referring to a telic event, like jumping off a chair, or an atelic event, like jumping for a while. In both cases, Caroline is using a form of allein to keep her mother from interfering. The expression allein is used in a situation where Caroline wants to go on jumping which her mother considers to be dangerous, see (44) and (45). leine spingen. ‚jump by myself’. mother: ne(in) alleine springen Henriette is(t) gefaehrlich. (2;1,28) ‚no, jumping by yourself is dangerous’. (45) mother: weisst du bei Max is(t) des anders da is(t) ein Bett da kann man draufspringen aber hier is(t) der Boden so hart. ‚you know, it’s different on a bed, but the ground here is very hard’. child: noch mal noch mal leine drei fuenf sechs sieben... (2;1,28) ‘again by myself, three, five, six, seven’. (44) child:

While in the two examples cited above the rejection or prevention of help by the use of the expression allein seems central, commenting on a skill with the use of allein becomes more relevant in the examples cited below, see (46) and (47). Although in (46) and (47) Caroline’s mother would like her daughter to calm down, Caroline is proud of her ability and her mother praises her even if somewhat reluctantly. (46) mother: springen aber nicht so wild Henriette weisst du-?! ‚don’t go too wild’! guck? child: ‚looking’? mother: gut.

132

Intensifiers in German and English production data

‚fine’. nein weg ich kann so allein? ‚no, is it OK like this by myself’? (47) mother: ne(in). ‘no’. child: alleine kann ich. ‚I can by myself’. mother: alleine kannst du. ‚you can by yourself’. mother: ne(in) [...] spring mal lieber hier drauf. ‘no, you’d better come jumpimg here’. child:

(2;3,11)

(2;3,20)

While in the previous three-month-period, Caroline combined the expression allein with either the first person pronoun ich or the modal kann, in (46) and (47) self-reference and kann occur together. Another example is given in (48). The context is that of Caroline and her parents looking at a picture book. (48) child: guck guck. ‘look, look’. mother: der klaut sich einen Fisch? ‚he is stealing a fish’? child : ja. ‚yes’. mother: so ein frecher. ‚how cheeky’. child: leine kann ich angucken selber. ‘I can look myself by myself’.

(2;3,24)

Besides the expression leine the utterance in (48) also contains the intensifier selber, which will be discussed in more detail in the next section. It should be noted at this point that Caroline is using leine and selber in the same context; she spontaneously declines assistance in a typically joint activity. The presence of both the personal pronoun ich (‘I’) and the verb form kann (‘can’) in the above examples documents that Caroline’s linguistic and non-linguistic development is somewhat parallel. She combines reference to herself with reference to an ability or developing skill and with an adverbial exclusive expression that separates her from interfering alternative agents.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

133

In the last example in this three-month period Caroline uses allein to refer to an event in which she is finishing a puzzle, see (49). (49) mother: Henriette du kannst es ja jetzt schon richtig ganz alleine ein Puzzel mit fuenfzehn Teilen. [...] ‚Henriette, you did that puzzle all by yourself’. mother: hier dies(es) ist doch (da)s letzte. ‚here is the last piece’. child: letzta leine macht. ‚put last piece by myself’. mother: toll Schnoebbel. ‘very good, darling’. mother: hastde [: hast du] das ganz alleine gemacht? ‚did you do that all by yourself’? child : leine macht alleine. (2;1,3) ‚by myself did it by myself’. Similar to an earlier example, the situation is uncontroversial and Caroline is commenting on a successfully completed action. Instead of trying to interfere, Caroline’s mother encourages her daughter to finish the puzzle without her help and then praises her for doing so. In both cases, the mother uses the expression ganz alleine (‘all by yourself’) to express that Caroline did not receive any help. 4.2.4. Caroline’s use of allein: 2;4–2;6. In the next three months, Caroline produces almost fifty percent of her total number of utterances with a form of allein. Of the 22 instances, 13 utterances are produced in a context in which Caroline is being dressed or undressed, see (50)–(52). (50) mother: und jetzt und jetzt der andere. ‚and now the other one’. child: leine. ‘by myself’. mother: ja ich halt es dir ja nur. ‚yes, I’m only holding it for you’. child: nein. ‚no’.

(2;4,26)

134

Intensifiers in German and English production data

leine. ‚by myself’. mother: och das ist aber nichts. ‚I don’t think it will work like that’. (2;5,2) (52) child: hamma Fruehlingspulli? ‘where’s spring pullover’? child: leine ganz allein. ‚by myself all by myself’. mother: toll und da an der Seite am Arm auch ganz alleine? (2;4,22) ‘very good and the other one all by yourself too’?

(51) child:

The examples in (50) and (51) illustrate another controversial situation in which Caroline and her mother debate who is going to complete an action. Caroline uses the expression alleine to express that she does not want her mother to take over. In (52), on the other hand, it is implied that Caroline has managed to pull on one of the sleeves of her pullover and she uses the expression ganz alleine to comment on this fact for which she also receives verbal praise from her mother. Recall from the example given in (48) that Caroline’s mother used the expression ganz alleine when commenting on an ability of Caroline. Two other examples of Caroline using ganz alleine in a context in which she comments on a skill that her mother also praises are listed below, see (53) and (54). ach Kette auffaedel [...] Kette auffaede ganz alleine. ‚make necklace, make necklace all by myself’. mother: hast du die ganz alleine aufgefaedelt? [...] ‚did you make that all by yourself’? mother: heute mit dem Papi? ‚today, with daddy’? child: ja. (2;4,16) ‚yes’. (54) child: und noch ne andre76 ‚and another one’. mother: jawoll. ‚yup’. child: ganz alleine kann ich. ‚I can all ny myself’. mother: ja wirklich toll. (2;4,24) ‘yes, that’s really great’.

(53) child:

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

135

In (53) Caroline is commenting on making a necklace, in (54) she is blowing soap bubbles. It is an interesting fact to note that Caroline’s use of ganz alleine in uncontroversial situations in which she also receives verbal praise is somewhat complementary to her use of allein, which is used both in contexts of rejection and comment. As already mentioned, for the last two three-month-periods Caroline is elaborating her verbal behavior along with her non-verbal behavior in situations in which she is becoming increasingly skilled. Apart from utterances as cited above, cf. (52)–(54), the verb form kann is often included. Of the 22 utterances discussed here, ten involve a verb form. Of these ten utterances, eight are with kann (‘can’). Apart from one utterance that was already discussed above, see (54), all instances with kann are produced within contexts that were already documented in earlier sessions, another three examples are given below, see (55)–(57). ja kann schon naemlich des Puzzel alleine guck! ‚yes, I can do the puzzle by myself, look’! mother: toll. (2;5,19) ‚very good’. (56) child: kann schon allein da runter. ‚I can go down by myself’. mother: ja du bist schon unheimlich grosse. (2;5,20) ‚yes, you are a really big girl’. (57) child: ich kann schon alleine. ‚I can by myself’. mother: gut und dann kannst du mir mal die Windeln geben bitte. ‚very well and can you give me the diapers, please’. (2;5,21)

(55) child:

In the examples the expression alleine is combined with kann in antiassistive contexts in which Caroline does not reject help, but comments on a skill. The contexts of completing a puzzle, see (55), jumping, see (56) and dressing, see (57) are recurrent and document a continuous development regarding Caroline’s linguistic and non-linguistic skills. The last example shows that, apart from broadening the contexts in which Caroline uses the expression allein, she also uses the expression in a new function as an adverb, see (58). (58) mother: aber der kleine Hund hat gesagt ich soll mit ihm reinkommen. ‚but the little dog said I should go with him’.

136

Intensifiers in German and English production data

mother: der hat gesagt Nani kommst du mit mir ins Bettchen? ‚he said Nani, will you lie in bed with me’? child: der will aber leine. (2;0,6) ‚but he wants by himself’. Caroline negotiates with her mother where a toy dog is going to sleep. This is the first example in which the use of allein comes close to the meaning of ‘without company’. The interesting aspect of this example is that Caroline is trying to convince her mother that the dog does not want to spend the night in Caroline’s mother’s bed, but that the dogs wants to sleep in Caroline’s bed. Thus, she is not arguing for the dog to sleep without company. Caroline’s use of allein in this example relates to alternative contexts in which the toy dog is part of a joint activity involving him and Caroline’s mother. With the use of alleine Caroline rejects this possibility. 4.2.5. Caroline’s use of allein: 2;7–2;9 In the last three months of the investigation, Caroline produces another four instances in which she uses a form of allein. Two expressions are adverbial exclusive in anti-assistive contexts and are used to reject an offer of Caroline’s mother. Different to previous examples in similar contexts, Caroline first directly rejects her mother’s offer with a negation and then produces an utterance containing allein, see (59). (59) mother: soll ich es mal halten? ‚shall I hold it’? child: nein allein # e ‚no, by myself’.

(2;7,8)

In the second example, Caroline combines alleine with selber, see (60). This example will be discussed in the next section. (60) mother: soll ich dir mal abmachen und du streichst? ‚Shall I cut it off and you will spread the butter’? child: nein! ‘no’. child: ich mach ab und ich mach selber alleine. ‘I will cut it of and will do myself by myself’.

(2;7,14)

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

137

An interesting development in the last three months of the recordings is that in two instances another agent-sensitive expression von allein is used, see (61) and (62). In chapter 1 it was shown that von alleine relates to causative contexts in which the agent of an event or action is unknown. In (61) von alleine appears in a structure that has Caroline as the referent of an implicit subject together with a predicate that describes a state. (61) mother: willst du schon mal bei mir kratzen? ‚would you like to scrape mine’? child: nein kann schon kann dis schon ganz von alleine. (2;7,14) ‘no, I can do that all by itself’. While the intended meaning is clear, the use of von allein in this structure is not target-like. Rather than relating von allein to a causative context, Caroline uses the expression to reject assistance. The utterance in (62) is more target-like in that it involves an inanimate referent of the subject noun phrase and relates to a context in which the source of the action is presumably unknown. (62) mother: hast du reingspuckt? ‚did you spit in it’? child: ne von alleine gesch hat dis Wasser komm. ‘no the water came all by itself’.

(2;9,3)

If used with inanimate third person referents, von alleine semantically contributes to the sentence meaning in that it is unknown what caused an event to happen. In (62) Caroline’s mother asks her if she spat into a glass. Caroline denies responsibility and relates the referent of the noun phrase the water instead of herself to a causative context. 4.2.6. Summary Caroline mainly produces the adverbial exclusive use type of the expression allein in contexts that are predominantly anti-assistive. In these contexts, distinction between allein when used to reject assistance and the use of the expression to assert non-assistance seems central in the first months of the expression’s use. In the first documented instances, Caroline uses allein to reject offers of assistance mainly in utterances relating to telic event structures. In the subsequent months the use of allein to comment on

138

Intensifiers in German and English production data

the fact that Caroline is able to perform a certain activity without the assistance of an adult becomes increasingly important. The first documented instances in this manner are utterances with allein that relate to atelic events. In the course of the use of the expression in this function, utterances become syntactically more complex and in many instances involve both the personal pronoun ich and the verb form kann. The more complex expression ganz alleine enters the system appearing in Caroline’s comments on her own abilities. Towards the end of the recordings, Caroline produces one example of the predicative function of allein and two examples of von allein. In one of the two instances, von allein is used in the causative function in a context in which Caroline tries to reject responsibility for an action. 4.3. Kerstin’s use of allein The second of the German children to be discussed here is Kerstin. In the last section, it has already been mentioned that of the three children Caroline, Kerstin and Simone, Kerstin produces the fewest examples of the expression allein, see Table 32. One reason for the relatively low number of utterances with allein in comparison to the other two children is that about half of her productions with allein cannot be analyzed as it is impossible to interpret their meaning. In the following paragraphs, Kerstin’s use of the expression alleine will be discussed together with some examples from the ‘other’ category if the form used and the context offer information about the expression’s function. Table 32. Kerstin’s use of allein allein other

1;3 0 0

1;4-2;6 0 0

2;7-2;9 3 0

2;10-3;0 0 2

3;1-3;3 1 7

3;4-3;6 3 0

total 7 9

4.3.1. Kerstin’s use of allein: 2;7–2;9 Recordings of Kerstin are available between the ages of 1;3,22 and 3;4,6. In the first one year and a half, no use of the expression allein is documented in the data of Kerstin. The first instance of the expression allein occurs when she has reached an age of 2;7,23. Kerstin’s first production of alleine is in the context of her going to the bathroom. Towards the end of the same

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

139

session, Kerstin also produces another example in the same context. In both instances Kerstin declines assistance in being wiped or climbing off the toilet, see (63) and (64). (63) mother: och du+meine+Guete, das ist ja gar nicht viel! [...] ‚oh well, that isn’t really much’! %sit: mother wischt den Hintern mother wipers butt child: alleine. (2;7,23) ‚by myself’. (64) adult: bist du schon fertig? ‚are you ready yet’? child : ja. ‚yes’. adult: dann ruf deine Mama. ‚then call your mum’. child: nein, will (al)leine runter. (2;7,23) ‚no, I want to go down myself’. In both instances allein is used in its adverbial exclusive function in an anti-assistive context. The expression allein relates to an alternative context in which Kerstin participates in a joint activity with an adult. Although Kerstin does not reject a direct offer of help in the situations described in (63) and (64), she rejects the way in which adults interfere in her activity. Similar to the first examples in the data of Caroline, Kerstin first use of alleine are rejections and are documented in the context of an activity that children around her age learn to master independently. In the third example produced in this three-month period, the referent that the expression allein is associated with is not Kerstin but an adult, see (65). (65) child: des ist mein Schuh. ‚that is my shoe’. child: du kannst das (al)leine schon. ‚you can do that by yourself’.

(2;9,11)

Kerstin comments on the adult Max’s ability to put on shoes. Similar to utterances produced by Caroline at an age of two and a half, Kerstin’s utterance involves both a personal pronoun and a form of the verb können (‘can’).

140

Intensifiers in German and English production data

4.3.2. Kerstin’s use of allein: 2;10–3;3 In the following two three-month periods only one example is documented, another nine examples appear in the category “other”. In the one example, Kerstin and the adult Max are both interested in some berries. Max asks Kerstin to fetch him some berries so that he can show her how to count, but Kerstin rejects his order and claims all berries for herself, see (66). (66) adult: aeh, Kerstin, bring ma(l) noch 'ne Beere, ne? ‚Kerstin, could you fetch another berry’? child: alleine. (3;2,8) ‘by myself’. In this example, the use of allein is neither adverbial exclusive nor predicative. Given the fact that with alleine Kerstin insists on keeping the berries for herself, it is difficult to find a suitable predicate that allows a target-like use of the expression allein. Kerstin’s use of allein is similar in meaning to the use of the expression as a focus particle, see (67). (67) Allein Kerstin will die Beeren behalten. only Kerstin want the berries keep ‘Kerstin is the only one who wants to keep the berries.’ In this sentence, it is expressed that it is only Kerstin who wants to keep the berries. In such a context, it is also possible to use a sentence like (68), in which the expression allein not only interacts with the subject noun phrase but also with the verb structure. This sentence expresses that Kerstin wants to keep the berries for herself. (68) Kerstin will die Beeren allein behalten. Kerstin want the berries only keep ‘Kerstin wants to keep all berries to herself.’ With regard to the functions which have so far been identified for the children‘s use of alleine, it is an interesting fact to note that Kerstin is using the expression as a rejection. The adult Max is planning an activity that involves Kerstin, himself and the berries. Although it is not entirely clear, it seems that Kerstin intends to express that in the planned activity she wants to maintain control of the berries. In this respect, the use of allein in this example is similar to the use of allein in anti-assistive contexts in which

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

141

help is rejected. Although the adult Max is not offering help but making a request, Kerstin rejects his interference in her activity. 4.3.3. The category “other” and Kerstin’s use of allein: 3;4–3;6 Between the ages of 2;10 and 3;3, nine utterances are counted in the category “other”. Of these, five are produced within one context. Kerstin and the adults present discuss that she is not yet in kindergarten, but will soon be. All talk about kindergarten as ‘school’, see (69) and (70). (69) child: dann wieder ganz alleine Schule kommen. ‚then again get to school all by myself’. child: und dann muss die Papa wieder frueh so abholen. ‚and then daddy must get her very early’. (70) child: so ganz alleine Schule gehen. ‘go to school all by herself’.

(3;2,8) (3;2,8)

In the two examples given, Kerstin produces utterances in the context of going to school with the expression ganz alleine. It was already noted that in the data of Caroline this expression marks the mastery of an ability which both child and adults regard as a positive achievement. In the examples given, it is not entirely clear what Kerstin is referring to, but it seems reasonable to assume that she is referring to herself going to school all on her own. Of the three utterances that are recorded in the last threemonth-period of the recordings, the expression ganz alleine is used once more by Kerstin. In this case she is referring to her ability of making a cake, see (71). (70) child: ich mach ganz alleine Kuchen. ‘I’m making a cake all by myself’.

(3;4,6)

The remaining two instances are also produced in anti-assistive contexts, one a comment on an ability, the other a rejection of help, see (72) and (73). (72) adult: die kann man so nicht nehmen. ‚it is impossible to take them like that’. child: ich kann das schon allein. ‚I can do that all by myself’.

(3,4,6)

142

Intensifiers in German and English production data

(73) mother: wart mal! [...] ‚wait’! %sit: hat KER die Klotuer aufgemacht opens the door for Kerstin child: alleine. ‚all by myself’ %act: geht rein enters

(3;4,6)

In (72), Kerstin comments on her ability to transfer sugar into a cup. Kerstin’s utterance involves the verb form kann (‘can’) and the personal pronoun ich (‘I’). She proudly announces her ability as the adult Max just stated that the transfer of sugar with a spoon is a difficult thing to do. In the last example, Kerstin rejects assistance when going to the toilet. 4.3.4. Summary Although for Kerstin only a few examples of her use of allein are documented, the two functions that were identified to be central in the data of Caroline are also represented in the data of Kerstin. Kerstin uses allein to reject the interference of adults in her activities and to comment on her own skills. The expression ganz allein is used several times mainly in instances that refer to an activity of older children, going to school. In one example, Kerstin uses ganz allein to comment on her skill of making a cake. In Kerstin’s data, allein is also documented in utterances in which the expression is used to reject sharing. In that example Kerstin uses allein to claim control of objects that an adult had planned to use in an activity. 4.4. Simone’s use of allein The last child to be discussed before Julia, Daniel and Mathias is Simone. Language data are available for Simone between the age of 1;9,11 and 4;0,6. Within this period, Simone produces a total of 67 utterances with allein. In most instances the expression is used adverbial exclusive both in utterances relating to telic and atelic event structures. Simone is the only German child with a relatively large number of documented instances in which allein is used as an adverb.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

143

Table 33. Simone’s use of allein allein

1;9 0

2;0 9

2;3 23

2;6 12

2;9 6

3;0 1

3;3 5

3;6 5

3;9 0

4;0 6

total 67

4.4.1. Simone’s use of allein: 1;9–2;0 Simone uses the expression allein almost from the onset of the recordings. In the second three-month period, she produces allein in nine instances, including examples of the adverbial exclusive use type and the predicative use of the expression. The adverbial exclusive use type is mainly produced in anti-assistive contexts as a means for rejecting the assistance of adults. With the predicative use of allein Simone rejects a joint activity. The nine instances that Simone produces in this three-month period occur within five different sessions. Three of the expressions are the targetlike forms allein or alleine, the remaining six are the reduced forms lein or leine, in six of the utterances Simone refers to herself as Mone. Similar to the previous children Caroline and Kerstin, the contexts in which alleine is used by Simone cluster around typically child-oriented routines, which the child is beginning to master independently. Main contexts involve changing diapers, see (74) and (75), or pouring liquids, see (76) and (77). (74) mother: so, noch’n bisschen macht die Mama drauf. [...] ‘so, mum will put a little more on’. child: Mone Mone leine. (1;11,14) ‘Mone, Mone by herself’. (75) mother: so. ‘so’. %act: nimmt die Hand und hilft SIM takes hand and helps SIM mother: pass auf! ‚be careful’! mother: Mama hilft 'n bisschen mit. ‚mummy will help a little bit’. child: ne(e) Mone (a)llein. (2;0,1) ‚no, Mone by herself’. (76) child: noch mehr Saft habe. ‚have more juice’. child: noch mehr habe, [...], Mone (a)lleine. ‚have more juice, Mone by herself’.

144

Intensifiers in German and English production data

Mone, jetzt nicht mehr aufmachen. ‚Mone, don’t open it’. (77) child: Milch habe, Milch. [...] ‚have milk’. mother: pass auf! […] ‚be careful’. child: Mone (a)alleine, Mone alleine. [...] ‚Mone by herself’. mother: Mama hilft en bisschen, sonst. ‚mummy will help you a little’. adult:

(2;0,3)

(2;0,3)

In the above instances, Simone rejects the interference of an adult; all contexts involve a controversial element in that an adult is trying to assist Simone which she rejects by the use of the expression allein. At an age of 1;10,20, Simone uses the expression allein when she is standing on a wall and is planning to jump down, see (78). The context is anti-assistive, Simone is trying to prevent the adult Max from helping her. (78) child: hopp mache. ‘jump off’. %act: will von der Mauer herunterhuepfen [...] intends to jump off the wall adult: 0. %act: nimmt SIM an der Hand und will ihr helfen takes SIM’s hand and intends to help her child : nein. ‘no’ child: leine. (1;10,20) ‚by myself’. One example is documented in this three-month period in which it seems that Simone is using the expression allein in a similar manner as the examples discussed in the data of Kerstin when she is claiming berries for herself. In (79) Simone and her mother are making necklaces and Simone’s mother is asking for more beads. (79) mother: und gibste mir noch mehr? ‚and will you give me more’? child: Mone (a)lleine ne Kette mache. ‘Mone make a neclace by herself’.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

mother: ja, du machst jetzt ne Kette. ‘yes, you will make a neclace now’.

145

(2;0,23)

It is not quite clear if the mother receives the beads, but Simone’s utterance following the mother’s request cannot be regarded as antiassistive as a paraphrase of alleine with ‘without help/assistance’ does not result in an utterance with a similar meaning. The context does not contrast with a situation in which Simone’s mother is helping her. Rather it seems that Simone wants to express that she is going to keep all beads for herself. Similar to the example discussed for Kerstin, Simone uses allein to reject the mother’s demand; she claims control of the objects that her mother wants to use. The last two of the nine examples document the use of allein in the predicative function, see (80). (80) child: alleine [?]. ‚by myself’. adult: willste alleine heia mach(e)n auf deinem Bett. [...] ‚do you want to sleep by yourself’? child: ja. ‚yes’. adult: du kleiner Egoist. ‚you little egoist’. child: (a)lleine -'. (1;11,13) ‚by myself’. In (80) Simone is planning to lie down and is pretending to prepare herself for sleep. With the use of the expression alleine she is trying to prevent her father from lying down with her. Alleine is used in relation to an atelic event and can be interpreted as meaning ‘alone’. The interesting fact to note is that the expression is used to reject a joint action. In comparison to the other two German children, Caroline and Kerstin, Simone behaves similar in that she uses allein in anti-assistive contexts to reject assistance. In contrast to Caroline who refers to herself with a first person pronoun, in many of her utterances Simone uses her own name for self-reference. In those examples that differ from this pattern in context, the expression allein is used to claim control as an agent.

146

Intensifiers in German and English production data

4.4.2. Simone’s use of allein: 2;1–2;3 In the next three-month period, Simone produces 23 instances of allein. Among the functions represented are the use of allein in anti-assistive contexts both in situations that involve controversial and non-controversial interests of the participants. In many instances, Simone uses allein in telic and atelic structures either claiming or trying to maintain agency in a given event. The expression allein is also used predicatively and as a means to gain control of an object that others want to use. As before, Simone uses both target and non-target forms. In six instances, Simone combines a verb form with her use of allein, but in contrast to the other two children, only in one instance a form of the predicate können (‘can’) is used. Below, two examples are given for situations which are uncontroversial as Simone’s mother is motivating her to act. Simone’s mother suggest that Simone should put a piece of ham onto her slice of bread, see (81), or that she should get a pacifier, see (82). (81) mother: da geb ich dir 'ne Scheibe Schinken und dann legst se mal auf 's Butterbrot drauf. ’I’ll give you a slice and you can put it onto the bread’. child: Mone alleine. ‘Mone by herself’. %act: nimmt mother ein Stueck Schinken aus der Hand (2;1,18) takes slice of ham from her mother (82) mother: Mone holt den Lala. [...] ‚Mone will get the pacifier’. mother: los. ‘come on’. child: Mone holt allein -'. ‘Mone will get by herself’. mother: kannste jetz(t) auch alleine machen. ‚you can do that by yourself now’. child: 0. %act: geht hinter das Bett und holt den Schnuller (2;1,21) walks behind the bed an gets pacifier. In the two examples given above, Simone uses allein to comment on her action. The contexts are somewhat similar to those discussed in the data of Caroline, where she uses the expression to comment on her achievements. In a similar example, Simone is attempting to carry a chair to a window so

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

147

she can water the plants. Her mother’s question if she can manage involves the verb form kannst (‘can.2SG’) directly referring to Simone’s abilities, see (83). (83) adult: kannst du schon tragen? ‚can you carry that’? adult: Mone? ‘Mone’? child: (a)lleine trage. ‚carry by myself’. %act: schiebt den Hocker an 's Fenster, nimmt die Kanne und giesst die Blumen (2;1,12) pushes the stool under the window and waters the flowers Rather than using utterances with allein to reject an adult’s offer of assistance, in a number of instances Simone uses the expression to claim agency in an event. In (84) Simone’s mother is unfolding a handkerchief for Simone which Simone wants to do herself. Another context features Simone’s mother attempting to apply talcum powder onto Simone’s baby brother; Simone is trying to grab the paper bag, see (85). (84) child: macht de Mone (a)lleine -'. ‚Mone do by herself’. adult: 0. %act: faltet das Taschentuch auseinander folds handkerchief child : macht de Mone (a)lleine -'. (2;1,19) ‚Mone do by herself’. (85) child: Mone (a)lleine -' ‚Mone by herself’.. %act: will mother den Papierbeutel mit dem Puder wegnehmen wants to take the bag with the talcum powder mother: nein. ‚no’. mother: ich muss das Loch doch nur aufmachen. ‚I have to open it first’. child: Mone (a)lleine. (2;1,21) ‘Mone by herself’.

148

Intensifiers in German and English production data

Similar to the utterances documented in the previous three months, Simone’s predicative use of allein is a rejection of an adult’s suggestion to carry out a joint action. Recall that in the last three-month period, Simone used allein to reject an adult’s offer to lie down with her. In the example given below, see (86), Simone rejects the attempt of the adult Max to enter a cardboard box together with her. (86) adult: Maxe auch reinkommen? ‚Max come in too’? child: nein nein. ‚no, no’. adult: nich(t)? ‘not’? child: Mone ganz allein. ‚Mone all by herself’. adult: Mone ganz allein? ‚Mone all by herself’? child: ja. ‘yes’.

(2;1,16)

In (86) Simone uses the expression ganz allein. In contrast to the way the other two children make use of this expression, ganz allein in this example does not refer to a recently acquired skill of Simone. In this threemonth period there is one other example in which Simone uses ganz allein without a special ability being an issue, see (87). mach ma(l) ganz viel. ,make a lot’. %act: nimmt adult das Rohr aus der Hand takes pipe out of adult’s hand mother: mach ma(l) ganz viele. [...] ‚make a lot’. adult: 0. %act: will ihr das Rohr wieder wegnehmen ‚wants to take back the pipe’. child: Mone allein. ‘Mone by herself’. child: ganz allein. ‚Mone all by herself’.

(87) child:

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

%act:

149

hat das Rohr in der einen Hand und die Kugeln in der anderen Hand, laesst sie irgendwohin rollen holds pipe in one hand and marbles in the other, lets marbles roll about (2;1,18)

In (87) Simone and her mother are fighting about a pipe that Simone is trying to roll marbles through. The situation is controversial as Simone constantly demands that her mother and the adult Max give her the pipe. The two adults do not react immediately but keep control of the pipe. In contrast to Simone’s use of allein in other controversial situations, cf. (84) and (85), the context is not anti-assistive, there is no indication that either Simone’s mother or Max want to help Simone in an activity, or that Simone’s skillful performance is an issue. The example given in (87) is one of six utterances with allein in a context in which Simone is trying to gain control of objects that are used by others. Two other utterances with allein in the same context are cited below, see (88) and (89). (88) mother: es ist am Morgen kalt. [...] ‚it’s cold in the morning’. %act: singt ins Ohr von child sings into ear of child child: Mone alleine. ‘mone by herself’. %act: reisst mother das Rohr aus der Hand (2;1,18) rips the pipe away from mother (89) child: gute Tag Maxe. [...] ‚hello Max’. %act: wackelt mit dem Rohr auf ihrem grossen Zeh moves pipe on her toe adult: du alte Doofe! ‘you silly one’. %int: lachend laughing child: (a)lleine mache -'. (2;1,18) ‘do it all by myself’. In (88) and (89), the expression allein is used by Simone in an utterance which functions as a demand and with which she wants to maintain control of an object. In (88) Simone is grabbing the pipe, in (89) she is commenting on the fact that she alone is playing with it. The expression is used by

150

Intensifiers in German and English production data

Simone to assert control; she wants to perform an action with an object that the other participants also demand control of. In one more instance, Simone uses the expression allein in a situation in which her mother is involved in an activity with objects that Simone would like to use herself. The utterances in (90) relates to a situation in which Simone’s mother is carrying cornflakes. bleib mal da! [...] ‚stay here’. child: Mone (a)lleine. ‚Mone by herself’. child: habe. ‚have’. %int: energisch vehemently adult: ja! ‚yes’. %com: mother und SIM kehren mit einer Tasse Cornflakes ins Kinderzimmer zurueck (2;1,19) mother and child come back with a cup of cornflakes

(90) adult:

In (90) the adult Max is pretending that the cornflakes that Simone’s mother is carrying are not for Simone, but someone else, possibly himself. Similar to the examples given in (87)–(89), the context is not anti-assistive and Simone’s competence or ability is not an issue. With the use of allein, Simone is trying to claim the cornflakes for herself. In 18 of the 23 utterances with a form of the expression allein in this three-month period, Simone refers to herself as Mone. Only few utterances contain a verb form. There is no indication that Simone links up a certain verb form with one particular function as was demonstrated in the data of Caroline (see above). In this and the previous three-month period, allein is used in similar functions. The most central type of context is one in which Simone and one or two adults compete for the maintenance or the gaining of control of an object that is used in an action. In anti-assistive contexts, Simone uses the expression to reject assistance, in a few examples she comments on her skillful performance. In one example, predicative ganz allein is used to reject the offer of a joint action.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

151

4.4.3. Simone’s use of allein: 2;4–2;6 In the three-month period that covers the age from 2;4–2;6, Simone produces twelve utterances with the expression allein. Only in one of the twelve instances is allein used in an anti-assistive context. The majority of examples produced in this three-month period relate to situations in which sharing is an issue and Simone establishes herself as an autonomous participant of the discourse. In the examples given in (91), Simone uses the expression allein to express that instead of the adult Max she is going to have toast. In (92) she expresses that the boy Thomas should not be allowed to eat all the cake and in (93) she does not want to share blocks. und fuer wen? [...] ‚and for whom’? child: fuer die Mone ganz alleine. ‚for Mone all by herself’. (92) child: nein das is(t) Kuehe das essen soll(e)n. ‚no that is, cows shall eat that’. adult: was is(t)? ‘what’? adult: nein nich(t) Kueh(e)n das essen der Thomas. ‚no, not Thomas eat cake’. child: nein nich(t) Thomas (a)lleine essen. ‚no, not Thomas eat by himself’. (93) child: Mone. ‚Mone’. mother: alle Kinder kriegen welche. [...] ‚all children will have some’. child: Mone allein. ‘Mone by herself’. adult: nein xxx. ‚no’. child: Mone allein will. ‘Mone wants by herself’. adult: nein. ‘no’. (91) adult:

(2;4,21)

(2;6,16)

(2;6,24)

In the three examples given above, Simone separates herself from alternative agents in a competitive situation. Similar to examples in which the child Caroline develops comments on her own achievements by using

152

Intensifiers in German and English production data

the adverbial exclusive expression allein together with a self-reference pronoun and a form of the verb können (‘can’), Simone uses adverbial exclusive allein together with her own name for self-reference and a form of the verb wollen (‘want’) when expressing her intentions, see (93). In both cases, the children develop linguistic means to establish themselves as independent and competent or willful agents. In the remaining examples, Simone either rejects help in an anti-assistive context, see (94), or she rejects joint action, see (95). (94) adult: dann kann se leicht durchfahr(e)n. ‚the train can go through easily like that’. child: ja. ‚yes’. adult: guck! ‚look’! adult: dann geht 's einfach. ‚it’s easy like that’. child: allein mache. (2;4,17) ‚do it by myself’. (95) adult: husch+husch+husch die Eisenbahn. ‚go, go, go, the train’. child: husch+husch die &Ei nein Mon(e) (a)alleine husch+husch+husch die Eisen. ‚go, go, the train, no Mone by herself, go, go, the train’. adult: will Mone alleine singen? (2;6,26) ‘does Mone want to sing by herself’? In (94), Simone rejects an adult’s offer of help when the adult Max is tying to show her how to push a train through a tunnel. The utterance in (95) relates to the atelic event of singing, and Simone produces an utterance with allein to reject joint participation in the event. Similar to Caroline, Simone uses allein to comment on a skill, see (96). (96) child: Mone kann das (a)lleine -'. ‚Mone can do that by herself’. %act: nimmt die Milchtuete takes the milk

(2;4,21)

Together with her own name for self-reference and the verb form kann, Simone relates to a situation in which she suddenly decides to pour herself

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

153

some milk. The verb form kann appears in one other instance in this threemonth period together with the first person pronoun ich. In (97) Simone gets up to fetch herself more popcorn. (97) mother: ich geb dir noch 'n paar. ‚I will give you a few’. child: ich hole. ‚I will get’. mother: ich, Mone. ‘I, Mone’. %act: geht auch in die Kueche follows her into the kitchen child: ich kann 's alleine. ‘I can do it by myself’.

(2;4,20)

In contrast to (96) where Simone makes a comment, she uses allein in (97) when her mother is about to interfere. Simone acts in a way that her mother does not appreciate, but Simone insists on performing her action and expresses that she is capable of doing so. 4.4.4. Simone’s use of allein: 2;7–3;0 In the next six months, a total of seven utterances with allein are produced. In the second of these two three-month periods, only one example is documented in the data of Simone. In (98) she uses allein to relate to a competitive situation similar to the previous examples discussed in (91)– (93). Simone does not want to share cherries with her mother but declares that she is going to eat them all herself. (98) adult: kriegt die Mama keine Kirschen? ‚doesn’t mummy get some cherries’? child: nein du ich ess alles alleine auf. ‚no, I will eat them up by myself’. child: esse alles alleine auf. ‚eat up all cherries by myself’. adult: und der Maxe? ‚and Max’?

(2;9,26)

154

Intensifiers in German and English production data

Apart from the example given in (98) another two instances are produced in controversial situations, allein in (99) and (100) relates to antiassistive contexts in which Simone rejects her mother’s interference in pouring detergent into a bowl. (99) mother: komm, en bisschen Pulver muss auch noch in's Wasser rein. ‚come on, put a little more into the water’. child: Maria Mone auch will alleine. ‚Maria, Mone wants to do by herself’. mother: aber nich(t) so viel. (2;8,15) ‚but do not put too much’. (100) mother: komm, dann tun wer in die andere Schuessel auch noch Pulver. [...] ‚come on, let’s put some into the other bowl’. child: Mone auch noch. ‚Mone too’. mother: tu mal Pulver rein. ‘put in some powder’. child: alleine. ‘by myself’. mother: nee. (2;8,15) ‘no’. One other instance of allein in an anti-assistive context is given in (101), in this case the situation is uncontroversial and Simone is commenting on the fact that brushes can wash a car without a man holding them. (101) adult: ja, muss das nich(t) 'n Mann in der Hand haben? ‚doesn’t a man have to hold it’? child: nee, die koenn doch da alleine des machen ja. ‘no, they can do it by themselves’.

(2;10,11)

The use of allein in a function that has so far not appeared in the data of Simone is documented in (102). (102) %sit: Tobias fällt um und schreit. Tobias falls over and cries adult: umgefallen, ja, Tobias, ja. ‚fell over, Tobias’.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

child: ja der Tobias alleine. ‚yes, Tobias by himself’. adult: was sagste, Mone? ‘what did you say, Mone’? child : hat alleine umgefallt. ‘fell over by himself’.

155

(2;7,23)

A little boy has fallen over and is crying. With the use of allein in (102), Simone expresses that he fell without anyone pushing him. It is also possible that Simone is trying to reject responsibility. The way in which Simone uses the expression allein is in the target system rather associated with the expressions von allein and von selbst that relate to causative contexts in which it is expressed that some action takes place the source of which is unknown. Comparing Simone’s use of allein until an age of 2;6 to the present two three-month periods, three aspects seem worth mentioning. First, a lesser number of utterances with the expression allein are documented. To some extent, this finding can be explained by a relatively low total number of utterances in these months (cf. earlier this section). Second, despite the fact that fewer utterances are documented, the two contexts in which allein is mainly used are identical. They cluster around the child’s attempt to express autonomy in situations where Simone demands control of objects or rejects assistance. In contrast to Caroline, Simone tends to express her intentions rather than comment on her ability. Therefore, her utterances often include the verb form will (‘want’) instead of kann (‘can’). Third, a new function is introduced to the system, albeit realized in a non-target structure. At an age of 2;7,23 the first instance of an agent-sensitive expression relating to a causative context is documented in the data of Simone. 4.4.5. Simone’s use of allein: 3;1–3;6 The following two three-month periods cover the age periods from 3;1–3;3 and 3;4–3;6. Five instances of allein are documented for each. The use of allein relating to a causative context appears twice in the first three-month period, see (103) and (104). Simone is commenting on a lost kite. (103) adult: aber einmal hat der Maxe nich(t) aufgepasst. [...] ‚but once Max didn’t take care’.

156

Intensifiers in German and English production data

child: nee is(t) er alleine weggeflogen. (3;3,25) ‚no, it went off by itself’. (104) mother: die ham doch auch 'n Drachen steigen lassen. [...] ‚they flew a kite’. mother: erzaehl doch mal dem Maxe, was da passiert is(t). ‚tell Max what happened’. child: da da hat der Junge den nich(t) festgehalten weil er alleine weggeflo weil der in Baum geflogen war kaputt gegang. ‘the boy didn’t hold on to it, because it flew off by itself…’ (3;3,25) In the second three-month period this function is realized in a target-like manner with von allein, see (105). (105) mother: schupst der auch manchmal den Tobias um? ‚does he sometimes push Tobias’? child: nee der is(t) von alleine hingefallen hat se und der is(t) gerennt mit nem Ball und da is(t) er auch hingefallen. (3;4,5) ‘no, he fell by himself…’ The remainder of examples in these two three-month periods includes the use of allein to reject a joint activity both in a situation in which assistance is (106) and in which it is not an issue (107). In the example given in (108) Simone expresses that she is in need of assistance. The example includes both the expression ganz allein (‘all by x-self’) and the verb form kann (‘can’), elements that have been identified to be recurrent in utterances that function as a comment on a skill of a child. ich kann (e)s auch machen eine Hand nee ich alleine ich allei-, ich ich will s machen guck ich kann s auch Maxe. ‚I can do it too, no, I by myself, I want to do it Max’. %act: oeffnet und schliesst das Armband (3;4,5) opens and closes bracelet (107) mother: hoer ma(l) schoen zu! listen! child: nein ich alleine ich alleine ich alleine warum darf ich alleine nich(t). ‚no, I by myself, I by myself, why can’t I do it by myself’. %act: geht zu mother, will die Floete approaches mother, wants to get hold of flute (106) child:

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

157

child: darf ich alleine machen (3;4,5) ‚I may do it by myself’. (108) adult: so geht das. ‚that’s how it works’. child: erst das drauf mach. ‚first of all put this one’. child: und jetzt das und das kann ich noch nich(t) ganz alleine. ‚that I cannot do all by myself’. (3;1,11) In two instances, Simone uses allein predicatively. One example is the rejection of a joint activity, the other is a comment on leaving a toy car at home. (109) child : dann hoer ich das allein. ‚I will listen to it by myself’. adult: ach Mone, bleib doch da. ‚come on, Mone, stay here’. (110) adult: kommste nachher wieder, Mone? ‚will you come back, Mone’? child: ja ja ja ja das Auto hier allein dableib. ‚yes, yes, the car stay here by itself’.

(3;5,15)

In the example given in (110), Simone’s predicative use of allein is for the first time documented in an utterance that is not a rejection of a joint action. Max and Simone argue if she is going to take a toy car to kindergarten. She wants to take the car, but is convinced by Max not to do so. A shift from the use of allein as a rejection to the use of the expression in a similarly structured context to comment on a state of affairs can also be observed in the example given in (111). (111) child: Maedchen -' und und Jungs. [...] ‚girls and boys’. child: und und die waren alle auf (de)m Schlitten und des duerfen se gar nich(t) weil des dem alleine is(t) ganz alleine is(t) de Schlitte(n) ‘and they all were on the sleigh and they are not supposed to because it belongs to him all by himself…’ (3;3,25) Simone expresses in (111) that a sleigh should not be used by a group of children as the sleigh belongs only to one particular boy. Simone uses the

158

Intensifiers in German and English production data

expression ganz alleine (‘all by x-self’) in this instance and it is interesting that in other situations in which the maintenance of control of an object was an issue, Simone used allein to reject the interests of others. It should be mentioned that (111) is part of a narrative in which Simone is not one of the referents and that the situation she refers to involves a conflict. 4.4.6. Simone’s use of allein: 3;7–4;0 In the three-month period covering the age from 3;7–3;9, no instances of allein are recorded. In the last three-month period, six instances are documented. Another two utterances are produced with anti-causative von allein, see (112) and (113). In both instances Simone rejects responsibility for the fact that she has just kicked someone with her feet. (112) child: das ham [: haben] se von allein gemacht. ‚they did it by themselves’. adult: wer hat das von allein gemacht? ‚who did it by themselves’? child: die da waren die Fuesse -' die ham [: haben] xxx und die ham [: haben] da so getreten. (4;0,6) ‚the feet were there and they kicked’. (113) adult: warum stoesst 'n mich so, Mone? [...] ‚why are you pushing me, Mone’? child: das is(t) doch von allein gegangen. [...] ‚that happened by itself’. adult: ich seh doch deine Fuesse. (4;0,6) ‘but I can see your feet’. The remaining four include the use of allein in the predicative function, see (114)–(117). (114) adult: und was machen die Kinder? ‚and what are the children doing’? (4;0,6) child: die sind allein zu Hause. ‚they are at home by themselves’. (115) child: guckt Fernseh - da kommt der grosse Junge und und reisst ihn (4;0,6) weg und er sitzt allein. ‚watching TV, the big boy comes and pulls him away and he is sitting alone’.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

159

(116) adult: und was is(t) dann? ‚and what happens next’? child: dann der will Obst holen, da kommt der Bruder und frisst alles allein und da hat er ne Floete, kommt der grosse Bruder und hat ihm das weggenommen. (4;0,6) ‚then he wants to get some fruit, then comes the brother and eats everything by himself and he holds on to a flute,…’ (117) child: weil die Chrissie Mone auch hier in (da)s Bett gegangen sind. ‚because Chrissie Mone went into the bed too’. adult: weil die auch da drin sind und moegen die Eltern das nich(t)? ‚because they are in there too and the parents don’t like that’? child: nee. ‘no.’ adult: warum moegen die das nich(t)? ‚why don’t they like it’? child: weil se allein schlafen wollen. (4;0,6) ‘because they want to sleep by themselves’. Although the situations referred to in (115), (116) and (117) all include reference to some sort of conflict, the conflict is not the central aspect of the situation that the expression allein is relating to. None of the utterances are used as a rejection, but are comments on events in which the participants are without company. 4.4.7. Summary Parallel to the other two children, the expression allein is often used in situations that include participants with controversial interests. In contrast to the other two children, there are many utterances with allein in the data of Simone in which she uses the expression to gain or to maintain control of an object that others want to use. Up to an age of 2;6 there are numerous examples in her data that represent this function of the expression. Towards the end of her third year, the number of utterances with allein becomes generally lower and a new function is introduced. In a number of utterances relating to causative contexts, Simone first uses non-target allein and then target von allein. Utterances with anti-causative (von) allein are both used as comments and as rejections of responsibility. In Simone’s third year of life, controversial situations are central in Simone’s use of the expression

160

Intensifiers in German and English production data

allein. In Simone’s fourth year of life it can be observed that the pragmatic force with which allein is associated in these contexts is somewhat weakened. Simone produces utterances with allein that shift from being used as rejections of joint action to a predicative use. In this sense, the last instances of allein are all examples of the predicative use of the expression and the same trend can be observed in that none of them are rejections, but comments. 4.5. Julia’s, Daniel’s and Mathias’ use of allein The three German children with the least extensive data base produce a total of seven utterances in which they use of form of the expression allein. Table 34. Julia’s, Daniel’s and Mathias’ use of allein Julia Daniel Mathias

2;0 0

2;3 0

2;6 1

2;9

3;0

3;3

3;6

0 0

2 1

0 1

2 0

Total 1 4 2

In all seven utterances, the expression is used in rejections. There are tree types of context, anti-assistive, see (118), a context in which the rejection of joint action is an issue, see (119) and causative contexts, see (120) and (121). Julia’s use of allein to reject an adult’s interference in (118) is similar to the use of allein as a rejection in anti-assistive contexts by the other three German children Caroline, Kerstin and Simone. (118) adult: siehst de deinen neuen puppenwagen? ‚can you see your new trolley’? child: ich auch. ‚me too’. child: alleine. ‘by myself’.

(Julia 2;4,21)

In (119) Daniel insists on holding a basket and does not want his twin brother Mathias to join in. (119) child: ich will was bauen. [...] ‚I want to build something’.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

child: ich halt das alleine fest. [...] ‚I hold it by myself’. child: der korb ich alleine festhalten. ‚the basket, I hold by myself’. child: Mathias darf da nur festhalten. ‘Mathias may only hold there’.

161

(Daniel 3;4,21)

The examples given in (120) and (121) include the expression allein relating to a causative context in which the use of von allein or von selbst would be more appropriate. It is interesting to note that despite the fact that there are only some examples of the use of allein in the data of these children, in three of the seven instances a causative context plays a role. Both in (120) and in (121), the two boys do not only refuse responsibility for breaking an object, but in a preceding or following utterance accuse their twin brother of being responsible. It is possible that the special situation of twins interacting produces contexts with a somewhat different emphasis on responsibility and competition. (120) adult: baust du keine kirche? ‚you’re building a church’? […] child: leine [= alleine] is die puttgangen. ‚it broke by itself’. child: tias [= Mathias]. ‘mathias’. adult: die hamm die anderen umgestossen. ‚the others knocked it over’. (121) child: der Daniel hat das puttmach. ‚Daniel broke it’. child: das war jetz leine puttgang. ‚it broke by itself’.

(Daniel 3;0,21)

(Mathias 3;0,21)

In the next section, the use of the expression selbst/selber by the three German children Caroline, Kerstin and Simone will be discussed. The way in which the three individual children relate selbst/selber to the context will be compared to the way in which they make use of the expression allein. Therefore, the number of instances in which allein is used by the children is repeated together with the number of instances in which selbst/selber is used in a given three-month period. The three German children Julia, Daniel and Mathias will not be discussed in this section, as no utterances with selbst/selber are documented in their data.

162

Intensifiers in German and English production data

4.6. The German children’s use of selbst/selber: Caroline As Table 35 shows, the German child Caroline produces a total of 25 utterances with the expression selbst/selber. The first instance is recorded at an age of 2;3,24 which is seven months after Caroline’s first documented production of allein. Table 35. Caroline’s use of selbst/selber and allein selbst allein

1;7-1;9 0 7

1;10-2;0 0 6

2;1-2;3 1 7

2;4-2;6 15 22

2;7-2;9 9 4

Total 25 46

4.6.1. Caroline’s use of selbst/selber: 2;1–2;3 When Caroline uses the expression selber for the first time, it appears together with the expression allein, see (122), Caroline is looking at a picture book together with her mother. (122) mother: der klaut sich einen Fisch? ‚he’s stealing a fish’. child: ja. ‚yes’. mother: so ein frecher. ‚how cheeky’. child: leine kann ich angucken selber. ‘I can look myself by myself’.

(2;3,24)

It was already mentioned in the previous section that it is impossible to say if there is a functional contrast between Caroline’s use of the two expressions in this example as they both seem to relate in a similar manner to the context. Alleine is part of a statement in which Caroline expresses that she is able to look at the picture book without assistance, selber is not embedded in a sentence but simply attached. Although there is no obvious indication of a differentiation in pragmatic function of the two expressions, on a more subtle level it can be speculated that selber emphasizes Caroline’s first attempt at expressing her autonomy. It is possible that selber is used by Caroline as a stronger means to state her involvement in a particular manner.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

163

4.6.2. Caroline’s use of selbst/selber: 2;4–2;6 In the following three-month period, Caroline produces another fifteen examples of the expression selbst/selber. This is the same three-month period in which Caroline produces the largest number of utterances with the expression allein. Recall from the previous section that in this three-month period, allein is in the majority of cases used in the contexts of dressing and undressing. In the same three-month period Caroline elaborates her use of allein to comment on or praise her own activities in that she uses the expression ganz alleine (‘all by x-self’) almost exclusively in this function and in that her utterances become syntactically more complex often involving the verb form kann (‘can’) and a form of self-reference. The expression alleine is also used in its predicative function for the first time. About half of the fifteen utterances with selbst/selber are produced by Caroline in contexts that also play a role in her use of the expression allein. Four utterances with selbst/selber relate to the context of preparing a slice of bread, another three utterances relate to the context of Caroline getting dressed or undressed. It is an interesting parallel to Caroline’s first uses of allein that among the first instances of selbst/selber the same contexts are relevant. Three of Caroline’s first productions with allein in the context of preparing a slice of bread are repeated in (123)–(125). For comparison, five of Caroline’s uses of selbst/selber in the same context between are given in (126)–(130). (123) mother: so Henriette soll ich dis [= das] jetzt mal machen mit der Butter hm? ‚shall I spread the butter’? child: nei leine. (1;9,26) ‚no, by myself’. (124) mother: soll ich dir den Honig draufmachen? ‚shall I spread the honey’? child: aeh leine Mami. (1;9,27) ‚by myself, mummy’. (125) mother: gib mal dein Brot? ‚can you give me your slice of bread’? child: lein ae ae leine lei. (1;9,29) ‚by myself, by myself’ (126) child: aeh Butter schmieren das kann ich. ‚spread butter, I can do that’.

164

(127)

(128)

(129)

(130)

Intensifiers in German and English production data

mother: das glaube ich nicht. ‚I don’t think so’. child: ich selber. ‚I myself’. mother: huch das kannst du wirklich? (2;5,1) ‚you can really do that’? mother: soll ich dir ein Leberwurstbrot machen als Pausenbrot? ‚shall I fix you a slice with sausage’? (2;5,31) child: nein selber. ‚no, myself’. mother: was moechtest du auf dein Brot drauf? ‚what would you like on your slice of bread’? child: aeh aeh mir selber schmiern wollt ich. (2;5,31) ‚I want to do that myself’. mother: so jetzt noch ein Pausenbrot. [...] ‚and some bread for your break’. child: nei will noch will noch mh mh will noch ein selber auch noch ein Brot. (2;5,31) ‚no, I want aslice myself too’. mother: soll ich schon mal Butter auf dein Brot tun? ‚shall I start putting butter on your slice’? child: nein selber. (2;7,8) ‘no, myself’.

In the examples given above, there is no straightforward difference in how Caroline uses the two expressions. Apart from the example given in (126), all utterances are produced in controversial situations in which Caroline claims her active participation in an action. When using allein or selber, Caroline is reacting to a request of her mother. The examples given in (123), (127) and (130) are almost identical save the fact that in one case allein and in the other two selber is used. The only obvious difference between Caroline’s use of the two expressions is that between her use of allein and selber there is a time span of eight months. Thus it seems that in almost identical contexts, Caroline first uses the expression allein and then switches to using the expression selbst/selber to negotiate her own involvement in an action. Table 36 lists the order of appearance and the number of instances of the two expressions in the context of preparing a slice of bread.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

165

Table 36. Allein and selbst/selber in the context of ‘preparing a slice of bread’ allein selber + allein selber

-1;9 5

1;10-2;0

2;1-2;3

2;4-2;6

2;7-2;9

1 3

5

It can be seen in Table 35 that there is a categorical switch from using one expression to using the other in the course of the recordings in the given context. Although a lesser number of instances are documented in the context of being dressed and undressed, it is also recurrent and involves both the use of the expression allein and the use of the expression selbst/selber, see Table 37. Table 37. Allein and selbst/selber in the contexts of ‘dressing/undressing’ allein selber

2;4 4

2;5 9 1

2;6 2

Once Caroline’s use of the expression selbst/selber is documented in the data in the given context, no more examples of allein are recorded. As Caroline does not generally give up the use of allein, an obvious question to ask is why no more examples with allein in these two types of context are documented and if there is a functional reason for this distinction. It was shown in chapter 1 that in adult language there is a tendency to link up anti-assistive contexts with the use of allein and delegative/autonomous contexts with the use of selbst/selber. Parallel to the examples already discussed in chapter 1, two sentences are given below, involving a child instead of an adult as referent, see (131) and (132). (131) Letzte Woche hat Till’s Mama Till ein Brot geschmiert, diese Woche hat Till sich allein/selbst ein Brot gemacht. ‚Last week Till’s mum fixed a slice of bread for him, this week Till fixed a slice of bread by himself/himself’. (132) Letzte Woche haben Till und seine Mama ihm zusammen ein Brot geschmiert, diese Woche hat Till sich allein/selbst ein Brot gemacht. ‚Last week Till and Till’s mum fixed a slice of bread together, this week Till fixed a slice of bread by himself/himself’.

166

Intensifiers in German and English production data

The interesting difference between the use of selbst/selber and allein in child-oriented speech in comparison to adult-oriented speech is that in child-oriented speech, autonomous and anti-assistive contexts seem as compatible with the expression selbst/selber as they are with the expression allein. While allein is not impossible in delegative/autonomous contexts in adult-oriented speech, selbst/selber is the preferred expression. Respectively, the use of selbst/selber in anti-assistive contexts is dispreferred. The interpretation of the semantic contribution of the expressions allein and selbst/selber is dependent on whether a child or an adult is the referent of a subject noun phrase. Apart from the fact that allein in child-oriented speech is most often interpreted as an instance of the adverbial exclusive use type and not as an instance of an adverb, assumptions about a child’s ability and competence to carry out actions are also an issue. The skills of young children are developing towards more autonomy and the standards of grown-ups and contribute to the interpretation of the sentences given above. While the use of allein and selbst/selber in (131) and (132) implies that in both cases the child is capable of a new skill, this is not an issue for the interpretation of selbst/selber or alleine in adult-oriented speech. On the basis that the expression selbst/selber most readily contrasts with contextual alternatives that involve the entire completion of a task by another agent, whereas alleine more easily contrasts with contextual alternatives that involve the completion of a task by several agents, it seems worth noting that on her way to greater autonomy, the child Caroline uses selber at a later stage in an identical context when both her linguistic and motor development are improved. A related issue is Caroline’s use of the expression ganz alleine. Of the six instances in which the form ganz alleine (‘all by x-self’) is used in the three-month period currently discussed, two are documented in the context of being dressed and are repeated below, see (133) and (134). (133) mother: na weil die Fuesse sonst falsch sind des ist das richtige Bein. ‚otherwise the feet will be in the wrong order’. child: leine ganz alleine. (2;4,20) ‘by myself, all by myself’. (134) child: hamma Fruehlingspulli? ‘do we have a spring pullover’? child: leine ganz allein. ‚by myself, all by myself’.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

167

mother: toll und da an der Seite am Arm auch ganz alleine? ‚very good, and the other sleeve, all by yourself, too’? (2;4,22) In both cases, Caroline emphasizes her agency in the activity by repeating leine with ganz allein(e). The way in which ganz alleine is used, implies that the non-involvement of adults in anti-assistive contexts is gradable. The expression alleine (135a) contrasts with the expression ganz alleine (135b) in that it is implied that in the case of ganz alleine an adult assisted even less. In contrast to alleine and ganz alleine, selber is a nongradable term, see (136). (135) a. Till kann sich schon alleine anziehen. ‚Till can dress by himself’. b. Till kann sich schon ganz alleine anziehen. ‚Till can dress all by himself’. (136) a. Till kann sich schon selber anziehen. ‚Till can dress himself’.77 b. *Till kann sich schon ganz selber anziehen. ‚*Till can dress all himself’. The expression allein implies contextual alternatives in which the parents are involved in varying degrees in the child’s activity. By negating contextual alternatives of this sort, the semantics of allein allow the children to express a gradual detachment from their parents’ assistance. With the use of selbst the autonomous activity of the child becomes a focus. The semantics of selbst imply a centrality of the referent and license a use of the expression that is independent of a contrast involving joint action. In the three examples with selber that she produces in the context of dressing/undressing, Caroline initiates her involvement in the process of taking off or putting on tights, a pullover and her underwear with the use of the expression selbst, see (137)–(139). (137) mother: die Strumpfhosen schon die haben ein vorne und ein hinten. ‚the tights have a front and a back’. child: probier ich selber den anzuziehen. ‚I try to put them on myself’. mother: ja machst du ganz prima. (2;5,31) ‚yes, you are doing very well’.

168

Intensifiers in German and English production data

so mach ich des okay? ‚I’ll do it like this, ok’? mother: ja ganz prima. ‚yes, very well’. child: probieren ich mein Pulli gleich selber auszuziehen. ‚I’ll try to take it off myself’. (2;6,15) (139) mother: na gut die mit den Puenkten. ‚ok, the one with the dots’. child: ich selber anzieht. ‚I put on myself’. (2;6,16)

(138) child:

The situations are uncontroversial; Caroline’s mother is praising her daughter for her achievement in (137) and (138). In (139), a conflict almost arises from the fact that Caroline cannot decide which pair of underwear she wants to wear, but the conflict is immediately resolved. In contrast to the utterances with selbst/selber produced in the context of preparing a slice of bread, in the three examples given above, Caroline does not react to an unwanted behavior of her mother, but initiates her own involvement in an activity in which mother and child cooperate. It was mentioned in the previous section that in a number of cases in which Caroline uses the expression allein to comment on a recently acquired skill, she also used the verb form kann. In the first two examples given here, Caroline uses the verb form probieren (‘try’) to express that she is planning her active participation, but she is also aware of not yet being fully capable of handling the task. The use of selbst/selber together with a form of wollen (‘want’) in two instances already discussed above, see (128) and (129), is another example for the presence of an element of mental planning and awareness in some of Caroline’s productions of this expression. In the three-month period presently discussed, there are another eight instances some of which are produced in controversial contexts in which Caroline’s mother expresses disbelief in Caroline’s competence, see (140)– (142). (140) mother: du baust ein Ball? ‚you are making a ball’? child: ja. [...] ‚yes’. child: kann ich eine Mutt ein bitte selber bau ich ein Ball bau ich. ‚can I have a, please, I build myself, I build a ball’. (2;5,3)

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

(141) mother: jetzt passt es so jetzt kommen die Entchen. ‚that it and now the ducklings’. child: ja wo? ‚yes, where’? mother: das gelbe da das rote da. ‚yellow there and red there’. child: nei selber. ‚no, myself’. (142) child: bin ein Glueckspilz? ‚am I a lucky one’? mother: ja blau [=! lacht]. ‚yes, blue’. child: blau ich selber. ‚blue myself’.

169

(2;6,0)

(2;6,18)

In (140), Caroline is planning to construct an object and when her mother expresses disbelief, Caroline first remarks that she is able to do it and then produces an utterance containing selber. In (141), Caroline’s mother is showing her where to fit a piece of a puzzle and Caroline rejects her mother’s interference with selber. In (142) Caroline wants to throw a die that her mother is using. Somewhat similar to Caroline’s first instances of allein, her first uses of selber are often in situations in which she establishes herself as an agent rather than commenting on her abilities. Another two example of selbst/selber are produced in a context that at first is uncontroversial in that Caroline comments on what she is doing, but a conflict arises when Caroline’s mother tries to interfere and Caroline reacts with another instance of the expression see (143). hab selbst gemacht. ‚did it myself’. child: so richtig? [...] ‚right like that’? mother: ja jetzt pass mal auf das ist noch nicht eingesteckt. ‚yes it’s not quite in yet’. child: ich selber einstecken. (2;5,24) ‘I put it in myself’.

(143) child:

170

Intensifiers in German and English production data

The last two examples to be discussed that are documented in this threemonth period are Caroline’s use of selbst/selber together with the personal pronoun du (‘you’) and her use of the expression as an adverbial inclusive intensifier, see (144) and (145). (144) mother: kann man nicht alleine spiel(e)n muessen immer zwei spiel(e)n? ‚you cannot play by yourself, you need two’. child: du du selber. (2;5,11) ‚you you yourself’. (145) mother: wer macht immer so? ‚who does like that’? child: Alicia. ‘Alicia’. mother: ja. ‘yes’. child: selber auch immer. ‚myself too’. mother: du auch? (2;5,19) ‚you too’? In (144) Caroline links up the use of the expression selber with a personal pronoun du referring to the addressee, her mother. If the expression is interpreted as an example of the adverbial exclusive use type, the whole utterance can be paraphrased by the English translation ‘I do not want to play, you can play youself’. Interpreted like this, Caroline’s utterance is very similar to her use of the expression selbst/selber or allein in which she rejects a joint action. Both the fact that Caroline is using the personal pronoun du and the fact that it is a game situation in which turn taking is relevant, contribute to the interpretation of the utterance. The elements of rejection and claim of agency are present, but Caroline is not trying to involve herself as an agent. Rather, she is trying to involve her mother in the situation. The example illustrates an use of the expression selbst/selber that emphasizes the relational aspects of intensifiers. In the given situation, the use of selber orders the participants of Caroline’s discourse in terms of center and periphery. As Caroline tries to convince her mother to act, she identifies her mother as central in relation to herself. A similar kind of observation can be made in the example given in (145). Here, selber is used as an adverbial inclusive intensifier and the notion of ordering participants in terms of center and periphery seems central.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

171

Caroline identifies herself in relation to another girl named Alicia. In both instances the notion of identifying one referent in relation to another more peripheral referent is central. 4.6.3. Caroline’s use of selbst/selber: 2;7–2;9 In the last three-month period the number of Caroline’s use of selbst/selber (nine instances) exceeds that of her uses of allein (four instances). Five of the nine utterances are produced within the context of preparing herself a slice of bread. In two of the five instances, Caroline reacts to an offer of her mother, see (147) and (148), and in (149) the two instances of selber are part of an ongoing debate. will selber. [...] ‚want myself’. mother: selber mit deinem guten Messer? ‚yourself with your good knife’? (147) mother: soll ich schon mal Butter auf dein Brot tun? ‚shall I spread some butter on your slice’? child: nein selber. ‚no, myself’ (148) mother: soll ich dir mal abmachen und du streichst? ‚I will give you some and you can spread’? child: nein! ‚no’! child: ich mach ab und ich mach selber alleine. ‚I got it off and make it myself by myself’. (149) child: will doch selber. ‚want to myself’. mother: du hast doch grad gesagt hilfst du mir. [...] ‚didn’t you just ask for help’? child: mh mh mh doch du da aeh die Butter haelst. ‚mh, yes, you can do the butter’. child: und dann aeh will ich die den Honig selber streich. ‚and then I want to spread the honey myself’.

(146) child:

(2;7,8)

(2;7,8)

(2;7,14)

(2;8,13)

It was mentioned earlier that in the previous three-month period, two utterances are documented in which Caroline uses a form of the verb wollen in combination with the expression selber. This is also the case in

172

Intensifiers in German and English production data

three of the examples given above. Recall from the previous section that Caroline often combines her use of allein with the verb form kann. This somewhat complementary use of verb forms with the expressions allein and selbst/selber reflects the general tendencies that can be observed regarding Caroline’s use of the expressions. In utterances with allein, Caroline in many cases negotiates the details of a skill that she is in the process of acquiring. While in a few cases she uses allein when about to perform an action, in the majority of cases utterances with allein are a reaction to an action of an adult. In utterances in which Caroline combines the expression allein with kann, she expresses that she has learned to perform a certain action somewhat independently. In utterances in which Caroline combines the expression selbst/selber with a verb form of wollen, Caroline explicitly states that she is planning an action and that she is also planning to do it without an adult. The context in which an utterance with selbst/selber and a form of the verb wollen is embedded seems more complex in that Caroline has to have some concept of herself acting independently before she produces such an utterance. While the use of allein is often an immediate reaction to her parent’s interference and the use of allein together with kann makes a statement about a skill that has been acquired in the past, planning an act in the future with selbst/selber and a verb form of wollen is an autonomous act in itself. In one other example, Caroline uses the expression selber in an utterance in which she also makes reference to a mental state see (150). (150) mother: mh toll hat dir das die Marion gezeigt? ‚super, did Marion show you’? child: nein ich selber mir aus. ‚no, thought off myself’.

(2;7,8)

In (150) Caroline expresses that a woman named Marion did not show her how to draw a particular shape but that Caroline thought of it herself. The utterance is a clear example of the use of adverbial exclusive selbst/selber in an autonomous context, as reference is made to a contextual alternative that involves the adult Marion doing something for the child. Of the remaining instances with selbst/selber in the last three-month period, one is made in a context in which Caroline is planning to pour herself some mineral water, see (151). (151) mother: so jetzt hole ich den Sprudel. ‚I will get the water bottle’.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

child: ich giess ich giess selber ein. ‘I will pour I will pour myself’.

173

(2;8,9)

In the last example to be discussed here, Caroline admits that she has dropped a mug, see (152). (152) mother: den hat irgendjemand runtergeschmissen mal. ‚somebody smashed that’. child: ich selber. (2;8,16) ‘I myself’. An alternative but unspecific agent is given in the preceding utterance, irgendjemand. This example is a clear case in which the effect of the use of the expression selbst/selber includes an ordering of possible agents. Caroline identifies herself in relation to the alternative agent named in the preceding utterance, irgendjemand and is characterized as the central in the act. 4.6.4. Summary The expression selber is documented for the first time at a point of development when Caroline’s use of the expression allein is becoming more multifunctional. In the three-month period between the age of 2;1 and 2;3 Caroline uses allein to reject help in utterances relating to telic event structures like preparing a slice of bread and as a prevention of parental interference in utterances relating to atelic event structures like sitting. Furthermore, at the time when selbst/selber begins to appear in the data, the first examples of Caroline’s use of allein to comment on or praise a recently acquired skill are documented. In the following three-month period between 2;4 and 2;6, Caroline’s use of allein in the contexts of preparing a slice of bread and of dressing/undressing is replaced by utterances with the expression selbst/selber. The increasing importance of expressing autonomy in her actions is also implicit in Caroline’s production of the expression together with mental state predicates. Rather than rejecting an unwanted participation in an ongoing action, Caroline uses selbst/selber when planning to initiate an action in which she does not want anybody to interfere. For the expression allein, a number of instances are documented in the data in which the expression is linked up with the verb form kann, the expression selber tends to appear with a form of the verb wollen. In the

174

Intensifiers in German and English production data

course of the recordings, a number of instances are documented in which it is not the pragmatic function of the speech act such as rejecting a state of affairs that is central regarding the use of the intensifier selbst/selber, but the function of the intensifier in terms of identifying a central referent in relation to more peripheral referents becomes more important. 4.7. Kerstin’s use of selbst/selber Together with the English child Sarah, Kerstin is the only child in whose recording the expression selbst/selber is used in more instances than the expression allein, but recall from the previous section that another nine utterances with allein are counted in the category “other”. Table 38. Kerstin’s use of selbst/selber and allein selbst allein

1;3-2;3 0 0

2;4-2;6 1 0

2;7-2;9 0 3

2;10-3;0 8 0

3;1-3;3 1 1

3;4-3;6 0 3

Total 10 7

The first example of Kerstin’s use of the expression selbst/selber appears in the data when she has reached an age of 2;6,2, see (153). In this utterance, Kerstin expresses that she is going to get her teddy bear from her room. (153) child: hole ma(l) Teddy - xxx Teddy xxx. ‘get the bear’. child: selber hole xxx. ‘get myself’. child: 0. %act: geht in das Kinderzimmer walks into her room

(2;6,2)

Although Kerstin produces this example of selbst/selber before allein appears in the data, it is not until almost five months later that Kerstin produces another recorded example of selbst/selber. In the three-month period between the ages of 2;10 and 3;0 eight instances with selbst/selber are documented, seven of which are examples of the adverbial inclusive use type of an intensifier. These examples were already discussed earlier and it was shown that despite the semantic differences of adverbial exclusive and adverbial inclusive intensifiers, the contexts in which Kerstin uses

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

175

selbst/selber are similar. An adult’s participation in an activity or an adult’s offer of help can be rejected by the use of adverbial inclusive or adverbial exclusive selbst/selber. It is not her mother’s offer of assistance or her mother’s verbal demonstration of control in an activity that is rejected, but the mother’s role as possessor or distributor. In the remaining three utterances with selbst/selber, rejection does not play a role. The pragmatic function of the expression selbst/selber in the example already given above, and in the two examples given below, see (154) and (155), is not in relation to a controversial situation. (154) adult: komm, wir malen mal’n Hund, ja? ‚let’s draw a dog’. child: achja, mal selber Hund. ‚yes, draw a dog myself’. (155) adult: es hat geklingelt. ‚the doorbell rang’. adult: wer kommt denn jetzt? [...] ‚who could it be’? child: ich mach selber auf. ‘I’ll open myself’.

(2;10,27)

(3;2,8)

In (152) Kerstin agrees with her mother as illustrated by the first word in her utterance ja (‘yes’). It is possible that Kerstin is proudly referring to her ability of being able to draw a dog, but as was already mentioned earlier, it is not entirely clear if in this instance selber is not also used as an adverbial inclusive intensifier here. In the example given in (155) Kerstin wants to open the door after the doorbell has rung. There is no indication that selber in the examples given in (154) and (155) relates to anti-assistive contexts. In (155) there is no explicit indication in the linguistic context that someone is planning to act in a certain manner, but Kerstin exhibits initiative and expresses that she is doing so by the use of the expression selbst/selber. Contrary to Caroline, the notion of Kerstin rejecting her mother’s attempt at participating in a joint action does not seem to be much of an issue. By the use of the expressions selbst/selber in (153) Kerstin relates herself to adults as alternative agents. Kerstin uses the expression selbst/selber mainly in situations in which selbst/selber functions as an adverbial inclusive intensifier. While independence is also central in Kerstin’s use of the expression allein, she not so much negotiates the details of her active involvement in a potentially joint activity with the use of selbst/selber as she claims to be included in

176

Intensifiers in German and English production data

situations in which her mother is either possessor or distributor. In situations in which Kerstin uses selbst/selber, it is often an adult who may be expected to act alone. The situations include opening the door, helping oneself to a slice of bread or a pen, or even asking for a cigarette. With regard to the fact that Kerstin uses the expression allein to reject assistance, comment on her skills and gain control over objects that others want to use, she comes close to making a functional distinction between allein and selbst/selber relating to adverbial inclusive contexts. What is similar about her use of both expressions is that both are relevant in negotiating her role as an independent agent. 4.8. Simone’s use of selbst/selber The German child Simone produces a total of 22 analyzable utterances with selber during the recorded period. The first two instances are documented in the three-month period covering an age of 1;10–2;0 Although both utterances are clearly non-imitative in that even in the wider context no adults use the form selber, it is another nine months until Simone begins to use selber in a more regular manner in the recorded sessions. Table 39. Simone’s use of selbst/selber and allein allein selber

1;9 0 0

2;0 9 2

2;3 23 0

2;6 12 0

2;9 6 3

3;0 1 5

3;3 5 8

3;6 5 2

3;9 0 1

4;0 4 0

total 65 22

4.8.1. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 1;10–2;0 The first documented use of selbst/selber occurs when Simone reaches an age of 1;11,13. The context is that of Simone pushing a cart that contains plastic toys, see (156). In the same three-month period Simone produces one other example with selber when she is reaching for a bottle with body lotion, see (157). (156) adult: jetzt 's alles drin! ‚now everything is in it’. child: selber fahr(e)n. ‚drive myself’.

(1;11,13)

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

(157) adult: jetzt verschmier 's mal! ‚now spread it’. child: ich selbst habe -'. ‚I have myself’.

177

(2;0,5)

In the first example Simone uses selber to comment on her action and it is possible that she is relating the expression to an anti-assistive context. In (157) the utterance is used as a request or a demand, but the context is not anti-assistive as there is no implicit reference to a joint action but Simone relates herself to the adult Max, who is handling the bottle with body lotion. 4.8.2. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 2;7–2;9 The next instances of selbst/selber appear in the data at the same time at which Simone’s use of the expression allein is documented in fewer instances and in which new functions of allein are introduced to the child’s system. In two instances of selbst/selber that are produced in this threemonth period, two have Simone’s mother and the adult Max as referent of the subject noun phrase, see (158) and (159). (158) adult: da muss ganz sauber sein, sonst kann man ja nix seh(e)n, wennman en Kuchen drinne hat ‚it needs to be clean, otherwise you cannot see through’. child: ma du darfst nich(t) hier selber machen putzen. (2;8,15) ‚mum, you’re not allowed to clean here yourself’. (159) adult: das is(t) doch gruen. [...] ‚isn’t it green’? adult: jetzt kommst du dran. ‚now it’s your turn’. child: du hast des doch hier selber draufgelegt. (2;9,26) ‘you put it on here yourself, didn’t you’? Both utterances seem more typical for an adult than for a child. In (158) Simone tells her mother that she is not allowed to wipe the inside of an oven door and in (159) Simone remarks with surprise that Max has put down a card in a game both of them are engaged in. In both instances, the alternative agent that selber can directly refer to is Simone. In (158) the intended meaning of Simone is difficult to speculate upon as it is not quite clear why Simone’s mother shouldn’t be allowed to proceed with her

178

Intensifiers in German and English production data

activity. The same is true for the utterance in (159). Although the utterance is a well-formed target structure, it is doubtful that Simone is also trying to express its meaning. In an adult-oriented setting (159) would express that the addressee had put down a card and the particle doch and the intensifier selber additionally express that the speaker is somewhat surprised since the addressee and no-one else put down the card, but the addressee acts in a way that implies that someone else had put down the card. It seems rather implausible that this is the intended meaning of Simone. Although there is no further information in the context what Simone could be trying to express, the two utterances are similar in two aspects. First, in both instances, selber is associated with an adult referent. Second, in both instances, Simone expresses some discontent with the adult’s behavior. It is possible that Simone associates the notion of contrasting or alternative agents with the use of selber, but also assumes that selber is linked to adult referents. This kind of explanation would also make sense for the third instance of selber that Simone produces in this three-month period, see (160). (160) adult: jetzt kommt noch Paprika rein. [...] ‚now the peppers go in’. child: Mone auch selber mache. ‘Mone do it herself also’.

(2;9,26)

In (160) Simone claims that she too wants to pour spices into the soup. The interesting fact about (160) is that the particle auch is included in her utterance. With regard to what was said above about the use of selber in (158) and (159), the utterance in (160) could imply that Simone too wants to act like the adults do. 4.8.3. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 2;10–3;0 Between the ages of 2;10 and 3;0, Simone produces five utterances with selber. In (161) Simone uses selber to comment on the fact that she has successfully performed the action of unraveling a paper roll by blowing on it. (161) adult: nein so geht das. ‚no, you have to do it like this’.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

child: hab sie selber durchgemacht. ‘put it through myself’.

179

(2;10,4)

In the remaining four utterances, Simone uses selber together with the verb form will, see (162)–(165). (162) child: will auch mal ein so ein auch mal so ein wie der Tommy so hat will auch runter. ‚I want the same one as Tommy, I want to go down’. child: ich will selber. (2;10,4) ‚I want myself’. (163) adult: sag mal zur Mama, sie soll dir en bisschen Traubenzucker holen. ‚tell your mother to get you some sugar’. child: Traubenzucker holen. ‚get sugar’. child: will selber reintun. (2;10,8) ‚want to put in myself’. (164) child: Mama ich will die Katze kleben. [...] ‚mum, I want to stick the cat on myself’. child: will selber die Katze kleben. (2;10,11) ‚want to stick on the cat myself’. (165) child: der Chrissie will er des auch selber essen. ‚Chrissie want to eat himself’. adult: ich will 's ihm ja auch gar nich(t) wegnehmen. (2;11,13) ‘I’m not taking it away from him’. It was mentioned earlier in this section that the German child Caroline uses the verb wollen (‘want’) in utterances in which she also uses the expression selbst/selber. It was argued that contrary to her use of the verb form kann (‘can’) together with the expression allein, selbst/selber and the verb form will (‘want’) mark that the child is able to anticipate her agentive involvement in an activity. In the examples cited above, four combine the intensifier selbst/selber with the verb form will, both as a full verb and as a modal. While a child’s use of kann and allein in an utterance implies that a skill has been (recently) acquired, the use of will and selbst/selber in an utterance implies that the child assumes that s/he child is competent to carry out her planned action. The focus is not on whether or not an adult participates in an action, but the focus is on relating the child as agent to other agents. In the examples given in (161) and (162), Simone wants to

180

Intensifiers in German and English production data

unravel a paper roll in the same way as the boy Tommy. Simone is not trying to gain control of the object that Tommy has but wants to perform the same action. In the moment when Tommy tries to unravel the paper roll for her she has just managed to do it herself. The examples in (163) and (164) are similar in that Simone does not want her mother to pour sugar in a cup for her, or that someone glues a paper cat onto a mobile for her. The central aspect of the use of selbst/selber in these utterances is not the rejection of joint participation, but the child’s demand to be accepted as an independent agent. With regard to the concept of acting autonomously, the example in (165) is interesting in that Simone uses the utterance to keep her mother from eating the boy Chrissie’s ice cream. The expression selber relates the boy to Simone’s mother. The fact that selber is in association with a third person subject noun phrase and the use of the verb form will illustrates that Simone is not only capable of planning autonomous acts, but that she also makes inferences about other children’s behavior. 4.8.4. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 3;1–3;3 Between the ages of 3;1 and 3;3 Simone produces the highest number of instances with selbst/selber. All of the eight utterances occur within contexts that are organized around Simone’s increasing competence in taking care of herself and in acting as a competent agent. Contexts include preparing a slice of bread, wiping the table, deciding what to wear, or fixing her hair. Five of the utterances include a verb form, in three cases this is the verb form will (‘want’), see (166)–(168) and in one instance each, kann (‘can’), see (169), and darf (‘may’), see (170). (166) adult: erst das hier. ‚this here first’. child: ich ich will mein(e)s selber schmier(e)n, ich schmier mir 's selber. (3;1,0) ‚I want to fix it myself, I’ll fix it for me myself’. (167) adult: ja und wer wer putzt des auf? ‚yes, but who will clean it up’? child: ich will das selber putzen. (3;1,0) ‚I want to clean it up myself’. (168) adult: wer hat 'n das zuerst gehabt, du? ‚who had it first’?

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

181

child: ich will selber. (3;1,11) ‚I want myself’. (169) child: guck kann schon selber schmieren. (3;1,0) ‚look, can fix it myself’. (170) adult: das darfst du selbst sagen, was du anzieh(e)n willst. ‚you may choose yourself what you would like to wear’. child: darf ich selbst sagen. (3;1,0) ‘I may choose myself’. In contrast to Simone’s use of the expression allein, the utterances in which the expression selbst/selber is used are in many cases not preceded by a situation in which an adult and Simone explicitly participate in a joint action. While the expression allein is often used by Simone to prevent adults from what they are doing, in instances like (164) and (166) she uses the expression selbst/selber to express her intention. Similar to the examples that Simone produced in the previous three-month period, focus is on alternative agents and not on the joint action itself. Apart from one example in which Simone and her mother argue about who is going to put a wagon into a certain position, see (168), selber in all examples relates to activities that are regarded as important skills. In the same age period, Simone begins to use allein in fewer instances and has started to include more various functions of allein in her system. 4.8.5. Simone’s use of selbst/selber: 3;4–3;9 In the last two intervals, Simone produces three documented utterances with selbst/selber. In the three-month period covering the age between 3;4 and 3;6, Simone uses adverbial inclusive selber to express that the boy Joschi keeps saying that he is an owl, see (171). (171) child: der Joschi sagt im [=? immer] er er er is(t) selber ne Eule. ‚Joschi says that he is an owl himself’. adult: was sagt der? ‚what does he say’? child: der Joschi is(t) selber ne Eule. (3;5,15) ‘Joschi is an owl himself’. The interesting aspect about uses of selber such as above is that while in many of these cases selber can be paraphrased with auch, an adverbial

182

Intensifiers in German and English production data

inclusive meaning is not necessarily central here. Rather the expression selber in these instances relates an attribute to contrasting referents. In the example given, the use of selber implies that there is at least one other referent for whom the predication also holds true. The last two utterances documented in the data of Simone appeared in the three-month period between the ages of 3;6 and 3;9. Both are modal constructions with wollen (want), see (172) and colloquial tu (do), see (173). (172) adult: was wollt 'n ihr? ‚what do you want’? adult: aufmachen? [...] ‚open it’? child: nein wir wollen selber xxx. ‚no, we want to ourselves’. (173) child: so. ‚like this’ adult: und so. ‚and like this’. child: und ich darf jetzt das ich tu das selbst reinlegen. ‘and I will put it in myself’.

(3;7,11)

(3;9,18)

The context of (172) is that Simone and a friend of hers want to open a bottle themselves and in (173) Simone comments on putting a card down in game she is engaged in with her mother. Similar to the instances of selbst/selber produced in the three-month period between the ages of 3;1 and 3;3, Simone uses the expression to relate herself as agent to alternative agents. The context is not that of a joint action, but Simone negotiates who is going to be the central agent in an activity. 4.8.6. Summary The first two utterances with the expression selbst/selber are documented towards the end of Simone’s second year of life. A more regular appearance of Simone’s use of the expression is not documented until almost a year later towards the end of her third year of life. Simone begins to use selbst/selber at a point of development when the documented uses of the expression allein become less. While the expression allein until then is mainly used by Simone to reject joint participation in an event,

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

183

selbst/selber appears in utterances that relate to situations in which joint participation is mostly not an issue. Rather selbst/selber is used to establish Simone’s role as an agent, often in contrast to other alternative agents. In the three-month period in which Simone produces the most instances of allein, 2;1–2;3, skills that are important in the development of a young child are often referred to in utterances with allein. In subsequent months, this function is documented only in isolated instances as the number of utterances with allein becomes generally lower. In the three-month period in which Simone produces the most instances of selbst/selber, 3;1–3;3, the expression is almost exclusively used in utterances that make reference to important skills. The expression allein is at this point used in fewer instances but in a variety of functions, including several instances of predicative allein and anti-causative von allein. Towards the end of the recordings, both utterances with allein and selbst/selber display a lower degree of pragmatic force in that selbst/selber is only occasionally used in utterances that are used as a rejection and allein is in the majority of cases used in utterances in which Simone comments on a state of affairs. In the next section, an account of the English children’s use of by x-self will be given. First, the three children Ross, Nina and Shem will be discussed. Earlier in this part, it was shown that these three children behave similarly regarding the event structure with which they link up their use of the expression by x-self. The child Adam produces the highest number of instances of by itself in anti-causative contexts, an expression which hardly occurs in the data of the other five children. Abe’s data is different from all other children in that he uses by x-self in the predicative function in many instances. The last child to be discussed here is Sarah, who only produced three documented utterances with by x-self. 4.9. The English children’s use of by x-self: Ross Recordings of the English child Ross exist for the period between an age of 2;6,18 and 6;1,20. Ross produces a total of 20 analyzable utterances with a form of by x-self. Table 40. Ross’s use of by x-self 2;62;9 2

2;103;0 8

3;13;3 1

3;43;6 2

3;73;9 5

3;104;0 0

4;14;3 2

4;44;9 0

Total 20

184

Intensifiers in German and English production data

In a majority of cases, Ross uses all by x-self. As was already mentioned earlier, Ross’s use of the expression is always adverbial exclusive, in the majority of cases the expression occurs in utterances relating to telic event structures. 4.9.1. Ross’s use of by x-self: 2;6–2;9 As Table 39 shows, the first instance of by x-self is documented in the three months covering the age period between 2;7 and 2;9. The context in which Ross produces (174) is anti-assistive, he comments on just having succeeded in putting shoes on a toy bear. (174) child: we'll put on the boots on the little bear. child: I did it all by myself.

(2;8,5)

The second instance in this three-month period is also produced in an anti-assistive context, Abe’s father offers his help which Ross first rejects with an utterance containing myself, but then decides that he might not be able to manage without assistance, see (175). (175) father: do you want me to help you open em? child: no I help all myself. child: I can't do all by myself.

(2;9,0)

4.9.2. Ross’s use of by x-self: 2;10–3;0 In the next three-month period, Ross produces another eight instances all of which are utterances with the expression all by x-self. There is no indication in the data that any of the utterances have the pragmatic function of a rejection, but as in some cases contextual information is missing, it cannot always be ruled out. In most cases, Ross comments on a skill that he or someone else is able to perform, see (176) and (177), or he comments on an action that he or someone else is planning to carry out, see (178)–(180). (176) child: the swimming teacher showed me how to swim and I did swim all by myself. (3;0,16)

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

(177) father: I put it in the wash. child: you put it in the wash all by yourself. (178) child: I want to feed all by myself. (179) child: I was going to take them all off by myself. (180) child: will you feed all by yourself

185

(2;11,1) (2;11,1) (3;0,16) (2;11,1)

The only use of all by myself that is produced in a somewhat controversial situation is given in (181). As in all other examples there is no indication of a real conflict. (181) father: okay now I've got to feed Marky. child: no you can't. father: why? child: I want to feed Marky all by myself.

(2;10,17)

All of the above examples relate to activities that are regarded as important skills. In the process of socialization, a child is expected to acquire skills such as swimming, eating, dressing oneself and reading without assistance. The last example to be mentioned in this three-month period, see (182), contains a use of all by x-self that does not relate to a straightforward anti-assistive context but rather expresses that someone hurt himself without anybody else being involved in the process. (182) father: what happened? child: he fell. child: he bumped his head all by himself.

(2;10,21)

Apart from the fact that all by himself is used instead of adverbial exclusive himself, this example is related to the case of intensifiers when used to express that the unlikely situation has occurred in which someone performs a negative act on himself. In German these examples often involve a combination of a reflexive pronoun and an adverbial exclusive intensifier, see (183). In English, as the expressions cannot occur in succession, the second syllable of x-self receives stress, see (184). (183) Er hat sich selbst den Kopf gestoßen. (184) He bumped his head himSELF.

186

Intensifiers in German and English production data

4.9.3. Ross’s use of by x-self: 3;1–3;9 In the next nine months of the recordings, Ross produces another eight examples, seven of which involve the expression all by x-self. Although these examples are collected over a long period of time, six of the instances are produced in the same kind of context. In the examples given below, the expressions by x-self and all by x-self relate to contexts in which children learn how to move about without being accompanied by an adult. I'm going to go to Folk dancing by myself. (3;2,2) if I go here all by myself then a car will come and kill me. (3;6,16) (187) child: and if I'm a big boy my parents will let me go all by myself. (3;7,4) (188) mother: Marky is going to go out the door. child: all by himself? (3;8,3) (189) child: why do their parents let them go out all by themselves? (3;8,18)

(185) child: (186) child:

As the examples clearly illustrate, being able to walk without assistance or being allowed to walk somewhere without a parent is associated with acting independently. In an adult-oriented setting, by x-self would most probably be interpreted as an instance of predicative by x-self. In a childoriented setting, the expression must be interpreted to relate to an antiassistive context. As the child gets older, it must be expected that the reading of such sentences gradually develops into an interpretation of the expression as predicative. In the remaining two instances, the expression all by x-self is used in one other anti-assistive context in which Ross pretends to fill gas into a toy car. Again, the situation in non-contrastive. (190) child: it means that you have to put gas more more a lot of gas in my motorcycle. father: right now? child: yeah. father: can't I wait? child: oh then I will xxx I'll do it all by myself okay? (3;8,18) The last use of all by x-self documented until an age of 3;9 is related to a situation in which control of objects that others are using is an issue, see (191).

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

187

(191) father: this is a Lada right? child: yeah. child: but we can't drive it because people will get mad at us. father: right.[…] child: they will want it all by their selves. (3;6,16) The expression all by theirselves is used similar to the use of the expression alleine as documented for the two German children Kerstin and Simone in situations in which they claim control of objects that others are trying to use. The interesting point to note about Ross’s use of the expression is that here also he does not use the utterance in an attempt to reject the involvement of others. 4.9.4. Ross’s use of by x-self: 4;1–4;3 The last two examples of the expression are documented in the three-month period between the age of 4;1 and 4;3. In (192) Ross makes use of predicative by x-self, again commenting on, but not rejecting a non-joint activity. The expression by ourselves in (193) is produced in a noncontroversial anti-assistive context. Ross and Marky jump up and down without the help of adults. (192) father: lie down. child: don't worry. child: I can sleep by myself. (4;3,15) (193) father: can Marky get down by himself? child: yeah I'm sure. father: why? child: because Marky and I went up down up down up down all by ourselves and that's what we did. (4;2,4) The last recorded instance of an agent-sensitive expression is documented in the following three-month period in which the first and only example of Ross’s use of by itself in an anti-causative context occurs. Ross doesn’t want his father to blow on the pizza so that it cools more quickly. (194) father: mmm pizza! child: no pizza squares. child: don't blow.

188

Intensifiers in German and English production data

child: there's a rule against blowing. child: let it cool by itself.

(4;7,30)

4.9.5. Summary With regard to the way in which the German children make use of the expression allein, it seems remarkable that in the data of Ross, the expression by x-self is never used as a clear case of rejection. The English child Ross mostly uses the expression all by x-self relating to anti-assistive contexts in which he comments on a skill or a desired independent activity like going places without his parents. Ross mainly uses the expression by xself in relation to activities that are relevant with regard to the successful socialization of a child in terms of acting as an independent agent. It is an interesting fact to note that in the majority of cases, Ross uses not by x-self but all by x-self. This expression seems similar to the German expression ganz alleine, which implies that the independence with which children carry out increasingly autonomous acts is gradable. In the case of Ross, this interpretation seems to make a lot of sense as the examples in his data mostly refer to activities that he is learning to perform as a more independent agent. Only towards the end of the recordings a single example each of predicative by x-self and of anti-causative by itself is documented. 4.10. Nina’s use of by x-self Nina produces a total of 18 instances with the expression by x-self. Of the 18 instances, most are adverbial exclusive uses of by x-self, relating both to telic and atelic event structures. In her data three examples of the predicative use of by x-self are documented. Table 41. Nina’s use of by x-self 2;0 0

2;3 0

2;6 1

2;9 4

3;0 9

3;3 4

Total 18

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

189

4.10.1. Nina’s use of by x-self: 2;4–2;9 The first instance of by x-self occurs in the data of Nina when she reaches an age of 2;5,28. The use of the expression is prompted by her mother who uses it in the preceding utterance. (195) mother: can she eat by herself? child: yes sure can she eat by herself.

(2;5,28)

Mother and child talk about Nina’s doll, the use of by herself is antiassistive in that it refers to a pretended skill of the doll which supposedly eats without help. In the next three-month period, another four examples of by x-self are documented. Two occur in an anti-assistive context, Nina is looking at a picture of herself and commenting on the fact that she sees herself swimming without an adult’s assistance, see (196) and (197). It seems that the use of alone after all by herself in (196) emphasizes the fact that no adult is present. Rather than interpreting alone as an indicator of the predicative use of all by herself in (196), it seems that Nina comments on the fact that it is remarkable that a little girl is swimming without an adult being present. In the process of swimming the presence of an adult is in most cases not just for company, but in order to help the child. (196) child: yeah let's see another picture. mother: ok. child: cause she loved that. child: oh who's that? child: she's swimming all by herself alone right? child: she's swimming all by herself alone. (197) mother: who? child: Nina. mother: what are you wearing? child: a hat. child: she swimming all by herself.

(2;9,13)

(2;9,13)

In the remaining instances in this three-month period by x-self is used in two further anti-assistive contexts. In (198) Nina is commenting on the fact that she made bread without her mother’s help and in (199) she is referring to a toy plane that she pretends is flying without her assistance.

190

Intensifiers in German and English production data

(198) mother: did you make the white bread by yourself or did I help you? child: no. mother: how did you make it? child: by myself. (2;9,13) (199) child: he's flying in the sky Mommy. mother: he is? child: by himself. (2;9,21) 4.10.2. Nina’s use of by x-self: 2;10–3;0 Apart from the example in which Nina refers to the plane flying without assistance and similar to Ross, the activities referred to are important skills regarding the process of socialization. In the three-month period between the age of 2;10 and 3;0, Nina produces nine instances of by x-self during the recordings. Similar to her previous use of by x-self and also similar to the English child Ross, anti-assistive occur in the data, but in these instances the expression is not used as a means of rejecting an adult’s offer of help or interference with Nina’s activity. However, in two examples rejection plays a role in that the situation is reverse and Nina rejects her mother’s request for help, see (200) and (201). (200) mother: you help me. child: no. child: you do it by yourself. (201) mother: can you count them? child: nope. child: now that triangle is. child: now you could count them. child: by yourself.

(2;10,13)

(2;11,6)

In both (200) and (201) Nina’s mother asks Nina to help her to perform a certain activity, but Nina refuses to do so. In comparison to the German children’s use of the expression allein, the examples are similar in that the expression by x-self is used in a controversial situation in which Nina is not willing to act as her mother wants her to. The difference to the contexts that are documented for allein in the German data is that Nina’s mother is asking for rather than offering help. It is possible that Nina is aware of the fact that the roles of her and her mother are reversed in these two examples. In this case, it is plausible to assume that Nina is imitating her mother in

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

191

asking her to do certain activities ‘by yourself’. In two other utterances in which the expression by x-self relates to an anti-assistive context, Nina talks about an action that she has performed successfully. In (202) she comments on lifting a stroller over a bump and in (203) she remarks that a baby in a stroller cannot move without help. (202) mother: so mary lifted the stroller for you? child: yup. child: then she lifted her over the bump and then she let go and then do that all by myself again. (3;0,10) (203) mother: where do you think he's gonna go in his stroller? child: he can't go by himself. (3;0,10) The examples in (202) and (203) are different from one another, as in (202) Nina is talking about her ability and in (203) about a baby’s inability to perform a certain action. Again, the acquisition of a skill is a central notion in these examples. In two of the examples documented in this period, by x-self is used in the predicative function with the meaning of ‘alone’, see (204) and (205). (204) child: now she's sleeping... child: by herself. (205) mother: how did we go? child: all by ourself.

(2;10,21) (3;0,3)

The above two examples are different to the way in which the predicative use of allein most often appeared in the data of the German children. In the majority of cases, predicative allein is used by the German children to reject a joint activity. In (204) and (205) Nina comments on an event, but the situations are both non-controversial. In the last example of this three-month period, Nina uses all by ourself in a situation in which sharing is relevant. (206) child: we had a birthday +... child: we had a cake all by ourself.

(3;0,3)

While in most similar instances in the German data the expression allein is used to reject that others have control of an object, the situation in (206) is non-controversial and with all by ourself Nina is only commenting on the fact that they did not share the cake with anybody else.

192

Intensifiers in German and English production data

4.10.3. Nina’s use of by x-self: 3;1–3;3 In the last three months of the recording, four more instances of by x-self are documented in Nina’s data. The examples are produced in similar contexts as all previous ones and fulfill similar functions. In (207) and (208) Nina comments on an action that she or other children are engaged in that are normally done with the assistance or supervision of adults. (207) mother: who's gonna go in the airplane? child: I am. adult: and I'm coming too? child: I'm gonna go all by myself. (208) child: those children gonna stay stay in the boat. child: they're swimming all by their self.

(3;1,5) (3,1,7)

The use of all by myself in (207) and all by their self in (208) expresses that it is an achievement and a sign of independence that the children are acting without the help of adults. In the other two examples, Nina is using the expression by yourself in an utterance that is produced as she tries to convince her mother to do something for her, see (205), and in (206) Nina refuses her mother’s request. As before, it seems that Nina is imitating her mother and that roles are reversed. (205) child: you can't reach this? mother: no it's too far away. mother: you're in the way. mother: who's in there? child: you could put these in by yourself? (206) mother: help me build a tower. child: no you build a tower a tower by yourself.

(3;2,4) (3;2,12)

4.10.4. Summary Contrary to the previously discussed child Ross, Nina uses both the expression by x-self and all by x-self. In the majority of instances when she uses all by x-self, she comments on an action that she performs and that children have to learn to perform without assistance. To the contrary, when rejecting a request of her mother or telling the mother to do something herself, the expression by yourself with no preceding all is used. Similar to

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

193

Ross’s use of the expression, it seems that all by x-self is associated with a child’s developing performance in activities that are important in the process of socialization. Similar to the previously discussed English child Ross, Nina’s use of the expression by x-self as a means of rejection is hardly documented in the data. Just as Ross, she mainly uses the expression in anti-assistive contexts to comment on her skills and abilities. In a number of situations in which Nina produces an utterance with by x-self, a contrastive element is introduced by Nina’s mother who asks for help which Nina then refuses. Nina uses the expressions by x-self and all by xself somewhat contrastively in that all by x-self is almost exclusively used in utterances relating to her skillful and increasingly independent performance as a child. Towards the end of the recordings, examples of the predicative use of by x-self are documented. These, too, are not part of utterances that function as a rejection. 4.11. Shem’s use of by x-self Shem produces a total of fourteen instances with the expression by x-self. Similar to the two children previously discussed, Ross and Nina, most of the fourteen instances are adverbial exclusive uses of by x-self. In Shem’s data only one example of the predicative use of by x-self is documented. Table 42. Shem’s use of by x-self 2;3 0

2;6 3

2;9 7

3;0 3

3;3 1

Total 14

4.11.1. Shem’s use of by x-self: 2;4–2;6 The first three instances of by x-self are produced by Shem in the threemonth period covering the age between 2;4 and 2;6. In the first example, by self is prompted by the previous utterance of an adult who tries to rephrase Shem’s use of myself in the utterance before, see (207). (207) child: dese whiskers go out myself. adult: you-'ll get them out yourself? child: by self.

(2;5,23)

194

Intensifiers in German and English production data

In this instance it is not quite clear what Shem is referring to, he might be using myself to express that he is going to initiate an action and produces the subsequent expression by self only because he rephrases the adults suggestion. In the two other examples, Shem’s use of by myself refers to an anti-assistive context. In both cases, Shem first asks for help and then immediately announces in an utterance with by myself that he is performing or wants to perform the action without help, see (208) and (209). (208) mother: careful with your feet right? child: help me right here help me help me help me help me up. child: ahahah there I do by myself now. (2;6,27) (209) child: like dis help me walk. child: help me walk hmhm I jump by myself I wanna jump on dere. (2;6,27) Both the examples given in (208) and (209) are produced in the same context. Shem’s mother warns Shem to be careful and it thus seems that when Shem uses the expression by myself, he is relating to the fact that he is performing an action that is somewhat dangerous for him. Although the situation is not controversial in that Shem’s mother explicitly expresses that she does not want him to go on with his activity, it is clear that she also does not fully appreciate it. 4.11.2. Shem’s use of by x-self: 2;7–2;9 In the following three-month period, the first utterance with by x-self in an anti-assistive context in which Shem’s utterance functions as a rejection is documented, see (210). (210) child: your, your, your chair fall over. adult: yeah I knocked it over. child: uhh! child: no! child: I wan(t) get in by myself.

(2;7,18)

In (210) Shem does not want to be lifted into his chair by an adult but wants to do it without assistance. Of the total of seven utterances with by xself that are recorded in this three-month period, another five are produced in anti-assistive contexts in which Shem mainly comments on his own

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

195

abilities. Only in one of the five instances is by x-self used in an utterance that functions as a rejection of an adult’s offer, see (211). In the examples listed in (212)–(214), Shem comments on an ability, and in (215) he indirectly asks for help. (211) adult: here I-'ll hold your hand. child: I-'ll go down by myself. (212) child: I can [//] um [//] take dose seeds out by myself. (213) child: I can make something by myself. (214) adult: what do you help her do? child: I put things away by myself. (215) child: I can-'nt get down by myself.

(2;8,29) (2;9,19) (2;9,27) (2;9,27) (2;8,20)

In (211) Shem refuses an adult’s offer of help in the process of going down steps. It is an interesting fact to note that in Shem’s utterance following his rejection, he uses the verb form can. It was noted in the discussion of the German child Caroline that she showed a tendency to link up her use of the expression allein especially in comments on her own ability with the German verb form kann. In the examples given in (212) and (213) Shem also uses the verb form can to comment on his ability, or inability, see (215). 4.11.3. Shem’s use of by x-self: 2;10–3;0 The use of anti-causative by itself is documented in the next three months of the recordings, see (216). (216) adult: that means they-'re clean now? child: yeah. child: yeah it did turn off by m [//] his [//] itself.

(3;0,20)

In this example, Shem and an adult talk about a machine and Shem remarks that it turned off without anybody causing it to do so. Another two examples of by x-self are produced in which the expressions refer to antiassistive contexts. Shem comments on his and another child’s skill, see (217) and (218). (217) child: he can do it by hisself. adult: yeah she can drink it by herself.

(2;11,10)

196

Intensifiers in German and English production data

(218) child: no we [//] my mommy said I [//] uhh [//] I wanna take my [//] my shoes an(d) socks off an(d) my mommy said okay an(d) he [//] an(d) he give me to take dem off but I nee [//] I need tuh take dem off by myself. adult: you know how to take (th)em off by yourself? child: yeah. (3;0,20) 4.11.4. Shem’s use of by x-self: 3;1–3;3 In the last three months of the recording only one example of by x-self is documented, see (219). (219) child: hm # once in a while I go on duh horse by myself […] I go on duh horse # an(d) den he runs # runs +… In this example, Shem uses the expression referring to an imagined situation in which he rides a horse with no adult present. Similar to other contexts in which the children of this study use predicative allein or predicative by x-self, the expression could mean ‘without company’ but it is as important to note that the child is making a statement about a situation that in a child-oriented setting usually includes a joint action. It is not very probable that a three-year-old child goes riding alone and the way in which Shem proudly announces that he sometimes does relates to this fact. 4.11.5. Summary Shem is the first child that produces the expression by x-self in utterances clearly functioning as a rejection. In the majority of instances, however, Shem uses by x-self relating to anti-assistive contexts when he comments on his own abilities. Towards the end of the recordings he shows a tendency to include the verb form can in his comments on his skills. Shem’s data includes the predicative use of by x-self and the use of by itself relating to anti-causative contexts.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

197

4.12. Adam’s use of by x-self Adam produces a total of 21 instances with the expression by x-self. In Adam’s data, the largest number of utterances with the expression by itself relating to anti-causative contexts is documented, see Table 43 below. Table 43. Adam’s use of by x-self and by itself by x-self by itself

2;1-3;0 2 1

3;1-4;0 11 14

4;1-4;6 8 1

4;9 0 1

5;0 0 0

5;3 0 1

Total 21 18

In the data of all children discussed so far, agent-sensitive expressions that relate to anti-causative contexts are only documented in small numbers and occur towards the end of the recordings. Adam is the only child who produces almost as many instances of the expression by itself than he does of the expression by x-self. 4.12.1. Adam’s use of by x-self: 2;1–3;0 In the first year of the recordings, Adam produces two instances of by xself, see (220) and (221) and one instance of by itself, see (222). (220) child: put on Mommy? child: put it by self. (221) child: I put dat by self. mother:you put it on by yourself. (222) child: merrygoround. […] child: drive by self. mother: driving by itself? child: (pro)peller.

(2;6,3)

(2;8,0)

In (220) and (221) Adam is talking about the fact that he either put on the tape recorder or his boot without the assistance of an adult. The context is anti-assistive but non-controversial, Adam is commenting on an action that he able to perform. In (222) he comments on the fact that a merry-goround or a propeller moves without a visible cause turning it. In all three instances, Adam uses the expression self without a genitive determiner. Despite this fact, the contexts that the expressions relate to can be clearly identified as distinct. In contrast to German, where expressions relating to

198

Intensifiers in German and English production data

anti-assistive and anti-causative contexts are formally different: selbst and allein can relate to anti-assistive contexts while von selbst and von allein relate to anti-causative contexts, in English the same kind of expression is used. The difference in function is mainly signaled by the person and number features and respectively agreement with the person and number features of the subject noun phrase. 4.12.2. Adam’s use of by x-self: 3;1–4;0 In the second year of the recordings, the agent-sensitive expressions by xself and by itself are documented in almost all of the three-month periods. In the first two three-month periods, four utterances in which Adam uses the expression by x-self are all organized around talk about children’s skills marking a specific point in development. All four contexts are antiassistive, and Adam comments on activities like reading, see (223), walking, see (224) and (225) and spelling, see (226) without the assistance of adults. (223) mother: Robin will read it? child: yeah. child: by himself. (224) adult: where did you go Adam? child: I went home by myself and visit a snake. (225) child: Paul can't he can't walk by himself. adult: not yet. child: Mommy can help him walk. (226) child: I gon to spell my name by myself.

(3;3,0) (3;5,0)

(3;6,0) (3;6,0)

In the following two three-month periods, Adam produces another seven utterances with the expression by x-self in anti-assistive contexts. As some of the examples given below illustrate, Adam’s utterances are not restricted to remarks on the general skills of children, but he includes comments about ongoing activities in which he both announces what he is not going to do without assistance, see (227), and what he has achieved without assistance see (228). (227) mother: you put it together. child: I don't want to do it all by myself. (228) child: here de wheels to dat.

(3;8,0)

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

child: Mommy you take one out. child: I put de wheels on de all by myself.

199

(3;11,0)

In the three months that cover the age from 3;4 to 4;0, Adam produces fourteen documented instances of the expression by itself. Of the first seven utterances, one example of the predicative use of by itself is documented, see (229). (229) child: and the rabbit stayed by itself.

(3;6,0)

The other examples are mainly produced in two contexts. Adam is interested in how a building can burn down, see (230) and why the propeller of a plane is turning see (231) and (232). (230) child: can a building burn it burn the fire by itself down? mother: can what? child: burn the fire by itself down? mother: you mean can a building burn down by itself? (3;4,0) (231) adult: now you turn the propeller many times. child: and how goes by itself? adult: ok let's try it. child: it goes ooh. (3;6,0) (232) adult: that's the place to attach the dart to the propeller. child: it's di(d)n't turn. adult: no? child: hello rascal. adult: why? child: dis turn all by itself with no one helping [?]. (3;6,0) As the examples illustrate, by itself is mainly related to contexts in which the causation of an action is an issue. The expression is, for instance, used in requests in which Adam asks about the cause of an event to happen. The example in (232) is especially transparent in this sense in that Adam specifically states that the propeller turns without anybody causing it to turn. Three more examples in which Adam uses by itself when asking about the cause of a movement are documented in the following three-month period. In these recordings, Adam uses the expression by itself to explain why a toy sailboat moves, see (233) and why a cradle rocks, see (234). (233) child: child:

it's a sailboat. just blow it hard see?

200

Intensifiers in German and English production data

mother: it's a sailboat? child: no. child: I told you it's will sail all by itself. (234) child: cradle will rock all by itself. child: when the wind blows it.

(3;8,0) (3;8,0)

In (233) and (234), Adam uses by itself which in the adult standard relates to anti-causative contexts and he also mentions a possible cause for the movement in both instances. In (233) he blows on the sails and thereby makes the boat move and in (234) he explains that it is the wind that makes the cradle rock. Adam’s claim that the cradle will rock by itself when the wind blows on it is somewhat contradictory. In this sense, Adam does not relate the expression to an anti-causative context, but uses the expression by itself to relate the utterance to a context with a non-prototypical, nonagentive source of the action. The use of the expression in (235) is somewhat similar as he uses by itself parallel to by myself or by yourself relating it to an anti-assistive rather than an anti-causative context. (235) mother: but what happened to your toe? child: it's stop bleeding@o? mother: no it got caught in what? child: my tricycle. mother: his tricycle. child: and it couldn't get out by itself.

(3;10,0)

The semantic contribution of by itself in (235) suggests that Adam’s toe has to learn how to do things independently. It is possible that Adam uses this structure to obscure the agent in an attempt to deny responsibility for the action. It seems that Adam is generally very interested in cause and effect relationships, in (236) he speculates about his little brother Paul’s reaction to a chair moving. (236) brother: 0. %act: swings chair back and forth child: he thinks the chair moves by itself.

(3;11,0)

Adam’s use of by x-self is similar to that of the other English children. He uses the expression to comment on achievements or ongoing activities that are relevant as general skills in the children’s development towards independent agents. The major difference of Adam’s use of agent-sensitive

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

201

expressions is documented in the high number of utterances with by itself. While Adam’s use of by itself is not in all cases completely target-like, he clearly relates the expression to contexts in which a non-prototypical source for an action is relevant or the source of the action is somewhat obscure. 4.12.3. Adam’s use of by x-self: 4;1–4;6 In the next two three-month periods, another eight utterances with the expression by x-self are documented in the data of Adam. In the months following this period, Adam produces no more examples of the expression. Five of the eight instances are produced in a context in which Adam is commenting on the fact that he is able to throw a plane. That he is proud of his ability and regards it as a skill that characterizes his ongoing development is especially evident when he talks about himself as a ‘big boy’. (237) child: child: mother: mother: child:

how was dat Mommy? did it by myself huh? yes. that was very good. I a big boy now.

(4;1,0)

The last three examples that are documented in Adam’s data include one case of a predicative use of by x-self, see (238), and two cases of the use of the expression in non-controversial anti-assistive contexts in which Adam announces that he is going to act independently, see (239) and (240). (238) child: why you winding up by yourself? (239) child: now I think I draw a airplane by myself. (240) child: no # I’m gonna do it by myself.

(4;6) (4;6) (4;6)

From an age of 4;1 onwards, only three more instances of by itself are documented. In (241) by itself relates to an animate subject it and functions as an exclusive expression in an anti-assistive context. By itself in (242) relates to an anti-causative context with an unknown source of the action. (241) child: and it couldn’t get out # by itself. (242) child: he thinks the chair moves by itself.

(4;0) (4;0)

202

Intensifiers in German and English production data

The example given in (243) is interesting in that Adam combines the subject noun phrase I referring to himself with the expression by itself. (243) mother: how do you know what we find at the carnival? child: I just know by itself.

(4;7,0)

Given the fact that so far he has used the expression by itself in contexts with an obscure source of the action, it can be assumed that he wants to express that the reason why he knows about the carnival is unknown. Recall from chapter 2 that in German, the expressions that relate to anticausative contexts, von selbst and von allein in contrast to English can also be combined with an animate 1st and 2nd person subject. It was argued there that the use of such constructions usually implies that the cause for an action is located within the mental decisions of the referent. It seems that Adam is trying to express a similar concept, but is lacking access to a target-like construction. 4.12.4. Summary Adam starts with a system that is multifunctional from the beginning in that he uses both the expression by x-self and the expression by itself. Although syntactically similar, these two expressions relate to different kinds of contexts. Adam’s use of by itself seems to reflect his interest in cause and effect relationships. In the course of the recordings, he first uses by itself to comment on particular phenomena, but then he uses the expression mainly in requests. Later in the recording, the expression by itself is used by Adam when speculating about why certain things happen in the manner they do. Similar to the other English children, the first recorded instances of the expression by x-self in the data relate to general skills that children are in the process of acquiring. In some of the later recordings, Adam also uses the expression to comment on less specific activities that he has successfully been engaged in or that he plans to carry out without assistance. Towards the end of the recording, first uses of predicative by xself are documented.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

203

4.13. Abe’s use of by x-self Abe produces a total of 37 utterances with by x-self. It was already mentioned in the previous section that Abe is the child who produces the largest number of instances with predicative by x-self. Table 44. Abe’s use of by x-self 2;6 0

2;9 7

3;0 9

3;3 6

3;6 7

3;9 3

4;0 1

4;3 2

4;6 1

4;9 1

5;0 0

Total 37

4.13.1. Abe’s use of by x-self: 2;7–2;9 The first example with by x-self that is documented in Abe’s data is in the context of Abe’s father receiving a magazine subscription. Similar to examples documented in the data of the German children Kerstin and Simone in situations in which they are expected to share, Abe tries to gain control of an object that he is refused. (244) father: that's a magazine subscription. child: that's for me? father: uhhuh and for Karen and Rob and Rich. child: no this is for me by myself what's in it Dad?

(2;7,0)

Abe uses the expression by myself in an utterance in which he opposes his father’s remark that the magazine subscription is not for Abe. The second instance of by myself is similar in that Abe refuses to draw a picture for his grandma and announces that he wants to keep it for himself. Both instances are constructed in a similar way and involve both a stative predicate and a self-reference pronoun in object position that is followed by the expression by myself. (245) mother: I know let's draw a picture Grandma. child: this picture is mine for myself. mother: it is? child: uhhuh this is for me by myself.

(2;7,18)

In another three instances, Abe discusses going to school with his mother, see (246).

204

Intensifiers in German and English production data

(246) child: I'm gon (t)a go at school by myself. mother: I'll take you to school and you can stay there by yourself and play and then Daddy can come pick you up ok? child: ok I'm gon (t)a be lost. mother: no you won't I'll know where you are Daddy will know where you are and you'll know where you are. child: I wan(t) (t)a go at school by myself. (2;8,25) The context of walking somewhere without company is also documented in the data of other children in this study. It is evident in the examples that Abe is negotiating how independent he is capable of acting. In the example given above, the manner in which Abe participates in an activity that children typically have to learn to master without an adult being present is a central notion. It seems that in this kind of situation, the adverbial exclusive interpretation of by x-self relating to an anti-assistive context is gradually given up in favor of a predicative interpretation of the expression depending on how autonomous a child is able to act in a given situation. For this reason, by myself in (247) seems to be an instance of the predicative use of the expression as going out to play seems to be not an as restricted activity as walking to school without an adult, even if in this utterance Abe is expressing that he does not want to go without his father. (247) father: what can we do inside for just a minute? child: I don't know watch something. father: watch something on tv? child: uhhuh. father: oh. (2;9,23) child: no I'm gon (t)a go play I don't wan(t) (t)a go by myself. 4.13.2. Abe’s use of by x-self: 2;10–3;0 In all but one of the nine examples that are documented in the next threemonth period, the expression by x-self is used predicatively relating to situations in which a joint state or joint activity is an issue. The examples include both statements and rejections. The utterance in (248) is one of two examples in which Abe expresses that he or his father is talking, but just for their own benefit, they are not engaged in a conversation.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

(248) father: what did you say? child: nothing I was talking by myself.

205

(3;0,7)

The utterances below are all examples of Abe using by x-self to reject an offer of a joint activity. would you like to take a bath with me? no. are you sure? uhhuh you do by yourself. (2;10,3) ok you set up the men and then I'll play a game with you ok? I wan(t) (t)a play by myself first after I play by myself you can play ok? (2;10,7) (251) mother: why don't we say it together? child: no you say it by yourself. (2;10,15) (249) father: child: father: child: (250) father: child:

In the examples given above, by x-self is used in a very similar function as allein in the German children’s data where the rejection of a joint activity is an issue. Rather than relating the expression to an anti-assistive context, the children refuse the adult’s participation in an event. In (252) predicative by themselfs is used. (252) child: before I was born I used to like mushrooms when they were by, by themselfs. (2;11,18) 4.13.3. Abe’s use of by x-self: 3;1–3;3 In the next three-month period, Abe uses the expression by x-self in a variety of functions. His utterances involve reference to anti-assistive contexts commenting on a skill or an achievement in which the increasing independence of the child is an issue, see (253) and (254). (253) child: oh [#] see the corn I planted? adult: wow! adult: that’s pretty nice! child: I made it by myself. (254) adult: are you ready for a hanky? adult: I mean for a washrag? child: yeah this time I’m gon (t)a wash it all by myself.

(3;3,1)

(3;1,26)

206

Intensifiers in German and English production data

The expression by x-self is also used in situations in which Abe comments on (not) being engaged in a joint activity and in which assistance is not important, see (255). (255) adult: when I came home from school [#] I played with you right? child: yep [#] no you didn’t you played right out there all by yourself. (3;3,1) In one example, by x-self is used together with a stative predicate in the meaning of ‘alone’, see (256). (256) child: ok Mommy [#] you’re gon (t)a stay here all by yourself. (3;3,8) In this three-month period, Abe for the first time uses by itself in an anticausative context, see (257) (257) father: are you just about through painting? child: no after this side then I need to dry it off when it won't all dry by itself. (3;2,5) 4.13.4. Abe’s use of by x-self: 3;4–5;0 In the last two years of the recordings, the use of the expression by x-self is documented in a decreasing number of instances. The expression is used in a variety of contexts, in many cases in the predicative function. In the majority of these cases, predicative by x-self is used to comment on the fact than an activity is joint or non-joint, see (258). (258) father: why don’t you work outside for a while? child: not by myself you come with me.

(3;6,19)

As before, by x-self is also used in anti-assistive contexts in which Abe is commenting on a skill or an ability. Instances include reference to important skills, like being able to cross a street, see (259), and skills that are not a specific part of the socialization process, see (260). (259) child: take this garbage. father: ok that would be good.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

207

child: I'm gon (t)a cross by myself. father: you're going to what? child: I'm gon (t)a cross by myself. father: ok but you have to be careful. (3;5,17) (260) child: and when I do come down will my candy be ready? mother: I think so here it is. child: how come we're not doing what I wanted? mother: I'm gon (t)a do that. child: can I do it by myself? mother: after I show you. (3;7,4) In the last year of the recording, Abe produces only four examples with by x-self. Of these, three represent the predicative use of the expression. In (261) Adam expresses that he does not want to be alone when playing. The example given in (262) refers to a non-joint situation in which Abe and his mother go somewhere without his father. In (263) Abe uses by myself to express that he would have been able to perform the action if his father had let him. The situation is controversial, but Abe does not stop his father from doing what he planned to do. (261) child: I wish we would babysit someone. father: why? child: (be)cause I'm pretty bored playing by myself awoh I was so wild I threw Chop+wood into the wall and his cape falled off. (4;2,13) (262) mother: what’ll happen if we wake up and Daddy won’t get up? child: we’ll go to Al’s by ourselves right Mom? (4;1,29) (263) father: here Abe I'll do that for you there. child: Daddy I could have done that by myself. (4;5,20) 4.13.5. Summary Similar to Adam, Abe starts with a multifunctional system. Unlike Adam, however, Abe does not use anti-causative by itself from the beginning, but instead produces a high number of instances with predicative by x-self. Many of the contexts in which predicative by x-self is used involve a negotiation about joint and non-joint activities. In a number of instances, predicative by x-self is used in utterances that function as a rejection. The use of by x-self in anti-assistive contexts is in many cases related to

208

Intensifiers in German and English production data

important skills that Abe is in the process of acquiring. Utterances with predicative by x-self are frequently attested in the data of Abe and it seems that they represent a continuum with regard to the adverbial exclusive interpretation of by x-self in anti-assistive contexts gradually developing towards an interpretation of by x-self as predicative as the child’s skills and abilities constantly mature. 4.14. Sarah’s use of by x-self In the data of Sarah, only three instances of the expression by x-self are documented, see Table 45. Table 45. Sarah’s use of by x-self 2;3-2;9 0

2;10-3;0 1

3;1-3;3 1

3;4-4;0 0

4;1-4;3 1

4;4-5;0 0

5;1-5;3 0

Total 3

Together with the German child Kerstin, in whose data less instances of allein than of selbst/selber are documented, Sarah produces less instances of the expression by x-self than she produces instances of the expression xself. Sarah’s data includes only about 20 percent less total utterances than the data of Adam who produces not only the highest number of instances with by x-self and by itself but also the highest number of instances including the expression x-self. It was already mentioned at the beginning of this section that there seems to be some relation between the total number of utterances recorded in a given time span and the presence of agent-sensitive expressions in the data. On the other hand, given the discourse dependence of these expressions, no matter how high the number of recorded utterances within a three-month period, chances are that they are not documented in the data. All three examples of by x-self are produced in contexts that involve no conflict. In (264) Sarah is talking about falling off a bike. (264) mother: how did you fall off the bike? child: all by myself.

(3;0,27)

The first use of the expression all by x-self is interesting in that the context is anti-causative rather than anti-assistive. It seems that Sarah wants to express that nobody pushed her when she fell off the bike. Parallel to the example that occurred in the data of Adam in which he was trying to

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

209

express a similar concept by combining a subject noun phrase I with the expression by itself, it seems difficult for children to use the appropriate English construction when trying to identify themselves as the cause of an action. The second instance of all by myself is prompted by Sarah’s mother and relates to an anti-assistive context in which an achievement of Sarah is proudly commented on. (265) mother: did cha tell Kent did cha tell Kent you do it all by yourself? child: I do all by my self. (3;3,7) The last instance is difficult to interpret as contextual information is missing. Sarah and her mother are involved in an activity with sheets of paper and it seems that Sarah is commenting on the fact that they performed an autonomous act in getting the paper as nobody else bought it for them. (266) child: we have piece of paper. child: we bought it. child: we bought all by ourselves.

(4;2,1)

In all three instances, Sarah uses the expression all by x-self. Given the low number of documented uses of the expression, it seems impossible to speculate about generalizations, although it seems an interesting point to note that in the data of the two children who also use the expression all by x-self in the majority of cases, Ross and Nina, the contexts they relate to are somewhat restricted in that reference is almost exclusively made to the developing skills of the children.

4.15. The English children’s use of x-self: Ross This section provides an analysis of the English children’s use of the intensifier x-self. Apart from the child Adam, all English children produce low number of intensifiers. In most cases, only isolated instances of the expression x-self are documented. The English children will be discussed in the same order as in the previous section. In the data of Ross, a total of five utterances with x-self are documented. All of the instances are isolated occurrences, with as much as one year between them. Although towards the end of the recording x-self appears in

210

Intensifiers in German and English production data

three succeeding intervals, it is difficult to argue that the expressions appear more regularly as each interval covers as much as three months. Table 46. Ross’s use of x-self and by x-self x-self by x-self

2;6 0 0

2;9 1 2

3;0 0 8

3;3 1 1

3;6 0 2

3;9 0 5

4;0 0 0

4;3 1 2

4;6 1 0

4;9 1 0

Total 5 20

The first instance was already mentioned in the previous section as Ross produces the utterance right before an utterance with all by x-self, see (267). (267) father: do you want me to help you open em? child: no I help all myself. child: I can't do all by myself. (2;9,0) It is not quite clear if the utterance with all myself is rephrased in the following utterance with all by myself. If (267) is an intentional phrasing of Ross, it is the only example in which an agent-sensitive expression is used as a rejection of an offer of help. In the second example, Ross and his father playfully switch roles and it is not quite clear what the function of yourself in the utterance is. It is somewhat reminiscent of the use of intensifiers as a means to reject a particular attribute such as discussed in examples (22) and (23), but it is equally possible that Ross is imitating his father’s reaction to Ross when making a request. (268) father: what do you have to do Daddy? child: I have to do my work and you can go poo yourself in your bathroom in here. (3;3,14) The next two examples are anti-assistive and non-controversial in that Ross either comments on the fact that he can, see (269), or cannot, see (270), do something. (269) father: are you sure you want to come in this car? child: sure because it goes fast and it's neat and I can do my seat belt myself. (4;3,15) (270) situation: talking about the blue shoes. child: you know I can't really tie those on myself because the shoe laces are really small. (4;7,30)

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

211

It is an interesting point to note that for the interpretation of myself in (271) it is not only important that Ross is commenting on a skill, but he relates himself to his father. With the use of myself Ross orders himself and his father in terms of centrality, characterizing himself as more central than his father with respect to the activity of reading. (271) father: do you think that you would like me to read it to you sometime too? father: you do a very good job. child: I could do it myself when you say I would want to read. (4;4,2) As there is only a very limited number of utterances with x-self documented in the data of Ross, it is difficult to say how the use of the two expressions x-self and by x-self is related. It seems that in some examples x-self and by x-self relate to the same kind of context. The contexts that are relevant in this respect are ones in which his Ross’s skills and increasing independence are an issue. None of the instances documented in the data are controversial, Ross does not use x-self or by x-self in utterances that are used to reject an adult’s offer or behavior. Towards the end of the recording, by x-self is also used predicatively and by itself is used an anticausative contexts. In the last example of Ross’s use of x-self there is some indication that the ordering of referents is an important issue.

4.16. Nina’s use of x-self There is only one single example of the expression x-self documented in the data of Nina. At an age of 2;3,18 Nina produces (272). (272) mother: now can I comb your hair? child: I want myself.

(2;3,18)

The context is anti-assistive and the utterance has the pragmatic function of a rejection. The instance is documented in the data of Nina before the expression by x-self occurs for the first time. As only one instance with x-self is documented in the data of Nina, functional differences in the use of the expressions x-self and by x-self cannot be discussed. Despite a single instance of myself in one of the first recordings, x-self is not used at all by Nina. As no recordings are available

212

Intensifiers in German and English production data

after an age of 3;3, it can only be speculated that the use of x-self would be more frequent after this age.

4.17. Shem’s use of x-self Just as the other two English children discussed so far, Shem only produces a small number of instances in which his use of the intensifier x-self is documented. As Table 47 illustrates, a total of five utterances with the expression x-self is documented in his data. Table 47. Shem’s use of x-self and by x-self x-self by x-self

2;3 1 0

2;6 2 3

2;9 1 7

3;0 1 3

3;3 0 1

Total 5 14

The first example is produced before Shem’s first documented use of the expression by x-self and is produced in a controversial situation in which Shem expresses that he does not want to receive help when taking off his shirt, see (273). (273) adult: child: adult: child: adult: child: adult:

you want me to take your shirt off? yeah ve(r)y hot. n it's very hot? yeah. okay come here. I wan(t) do da self. okay.

(2;3,21)

The second instance is recorded at an age of 2;2,4 and is produced when Shem is trying to initiate an action, see (274). (274) child: in here the blocks the rest away little. adult: what? child: very little so is very little put up there I do myself. adult: okay you wanna do it yourself? (2;2,4) There is no indication in the data that the context must be interpreted as anti-assistive, but Shem is relating his own agency to that of the adult as they are involved in the activity of building with blocks together. As there

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

213

is no further contextual information, this instance is difficult to interpret. The third example was already discussed in the previous section as it is directly followed by an utterance of Shem with by self, see (210). (275) child: your, your, your chair fall over. adult: yeah I knocked it over. child: uhh! child: no! child: I wan(t) get in by myself. adult: oh okay. child: I wan(t) ge(t) myself.

(2;7,18)

It is possible that Shem reinforces his intention of getting into his seat without assistance in the utterance with x-self. Recall that a similar example is documented for the German child Caroline in which she reinforces allein with selber. The last documented instance of x-self in the data of Shem is similar to (274) in that it seems that Shem is using the expression when initiating an action, but it is also possible that x-self relates to an alternative referent like the adult. If the intention of myself in the utterance is to express that Shem does not want the adult to do the opening for him or to get an object for him, it can be argued that the intensifier is relating to an autonomous context. (276) child: duh closet's open I fink. child: it's open. child: get it myself. child: I found it!

(3;0,5)

Of the five examples that Shem produces with the expression x-self, all relate to activities in which Shem and the adult directly interact. They are involved in a joint action when Shem uses x-self to express his own agentive involvement in relation to the adult. All instances relate to the potential assistance of an adult. While the last example is no exception to this, it is possible to interpret the expression x-self as relating to an autonomous rather than an anti-assistive context. As was already mentioned, all three children discussed so far produce only a small number of instances with the intensifier x-self. With regard to two instances in the data of Ross and one instance in the data of Shem, it was speculated that the notion of ordering of alternative agents in terms of centrality may play a role in their use of the intensifier.

214

Intensifiers in German and English production data

4.18. Adam’s use of x-self In the data of Adam, a total of nineteen instances with the English intensifier x-self is documented, see Table 47. Despite the fact that Adam is the child who produces the largest number of intensifiers, in the majority of cases only isolated instances are documented. The largest number of instances with x-self is recorded in three succeeding intervals between the ages of 4;4 and 5;0. The largest number of instances with by x-self and by itself are documented earlier in the recordings when Adam’s age is between 3;6 and 4;6. Similar to all other children discussed so far, Adam produces less examples of the intensifier x-self than he does of the related expression by x-self. Table 48. Adam’s use of x-self and by x-self x-self by x-self by itself

2;12;6 0 2 0

2;73;0 2 0 1

3;13;6 4 4 7

3;74;0 1 7 7

4;14;6 6 8 1

4;75;0 6 0 1

5;15;3 0 0 1

Total 19 21 18

4.18.1. Adam’s use of x-self: 2;1–4;0 In the first two years of the recording, Adam produces the intensifier x-self in single instances. The first example of x-self is prompted by Adam’s mother in a situation in which the two of them discuss the making of cakes, see (277). (277) mother: did you bake that yourself? child: bake it self.

(2;7,0)

The context is anti-assistive and non-controversial. It is obvious that Adam’s mother encourages Adam to act independently. The second example was already discussed in the previous section, since Adam produces an example of the adverbial inclusive use type. In the three-month period between the ages of 3,1 and 3;3 three utterances including an intensifier are documented in the data of Adam. In (278) he is commenting on an action that he is going to perform without assistance.

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

(278) child: how d(o) you put it on? child: I will put in dere myself.

215

(3;2,0)

The context in (278) is either anti-assistive or autonomous in that it is not quite clear if Adam does not want to be assisted or if he does not his mother to perform the action for him. The utterance could be interpreted as a rejection of the mother’s implicit suggestion, but the situation is not really controversial. In the following sequence Adam’s mother is mocking him, see (279). (279) mother: no let's do it up here first. child: no I want to find myself goes. mother: no I want to find myself goes.

(3;3,0)

The situation is clearly controversial with mother and child debating about who is in control of the action. The last example in this interval is interesting as an interpretation of myself relating to an anti-assistive seems almost impossible, see (280). (280) child: where's de red marble huh? child: I lost myself.

(3;3,0)

Adam remarks that nobody lost the marble for him but that he is responsible. The expression myself relates to an “autonomous” context in that Adam relates himself to alternative agents that could also have performed the action. 4.18.2. Adam’s use of x-self: 4;1–4;3 The example that is documented in the three months covering the age period from 4;1–4;3 is a strong rejection of Adam’s mother’s interference with his plans and actions, see (281). (281) child: Mom I don't want nobody to wear my glasses. child: Mom he doesn't want dem on. child: want me put dem on you? child: see he doesn't want them on. mother: yes he'd like to do it himself. child: no let me do it my own self. (4;3,0)

216

Intensifiers in German and English production data

In (281) Adam does not want his little brother to wear his glasses. Adam’s mother is trying to let Adam’s little brother have them, but Adam strictly rejects her suggestion. The example is interesting in that Adam uses the expression my own self. With regard to the force with which Adam tries to reach his goal, it seems to make little sense to argue that the context is anti-assistive. It is not the case that Adam does not want to be assisted; he does not want his brother to handle his glasses and claims control of the object. 4.18.3. Adam’s use of x-self: 4;4–4;6 In the next three-month period, five examples are documented. Three of the five instances are produced in a context in which Adam and the adult Ursula are putting paper on a machine that makes designs, see (282) and (283). (282) adult: let's make another piece of paper alright? child: yeah. child: hey I wan(t) (t)a do it dis time myself. child: I'm gonna draw it just a little more. adult: alright. child: let me what it's gonna do now. child: now I'm gonna put it on my own self. adult: it's a little bit too big. (4;4,13) (283) child: I'm gonna do de turtle on de other side. child: two turtles. child: now now now now. child: I put it on myself. adult: ok wait Adam. (4;4,13) The situation in (282) and (283) is highly controversial as Adam constantly tries to gain control of the machine, but the adult Ursula keeps interfering as it seems difficult to fit the paper onto the machine. In two of his utterances, Adam uses the expression myself and in one he uses my own self. Contrary to the first example in which my own self was used, the activity that Adam is involved in together with an adult is one in which assistance is an issue, as it seems that Adam cannot manage himself. It is, however, possible that Adam assumes that the adult is in the same way interested in using the machine as he is. In this case, Adam’s interpretation

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

217

of Ursula’s interference would not be that she is assisting him, but that she is trying to gain control of the object herself. If this perspective is taken on the event, the context for the use of the expressions myself and my own self must be interpreted as autonomous rather than as anti-assistive. Similar to the first instance of my own self, all three instances cited above are rejections of interference and a claim of control. Adam is impatient to perform the action himself and the way in which he uses the expressions emphasizes the fact that he instead of the adult wants to be the active participant. In the three instances, both the expressions myself and my own self emphasize the relation between the referents in terms of who Adam thinks should be the agent. The two remaining instances are produced in one context, see (284). (284) child: don't throw it away I'm angry! child: I will be angry if you do that. mother: alright. child: and I'll pick it up! mother: oh you're going to pick it up. child: and buy me some more paper myself! child: and if I forget don't you pick it up! child: I want to pick it up my own self.

(4;5,0)

Just as in the three examples before, the situation is highly controversial and it seems that Adam is for some reason angry with his mother. Adam uses myself in a situation in which no scenario exists regarding his mother’s possible involvement. When Adam announces that he will buy some paper himself, it may be implied but not explicitly referred to that in an alternative context, Adam would buy the paper together with his mother. In the case of my own self Adam explicitly states the alternative scenario and demands that his mother should not pick up the paper. With this possibility in mind, Adam produces an utterance with my own self to reject the hypothetical scenario. Adam produces both of his utterances although there is no indication in the data or the contextual information that Adam’s mother is interfering in any way: Adam tries to prevent her possible involvement before she has even started to act.

218

Intensifiers in German and English production data

4.18.4. Adam’s use of x-self: 4;7–4;9 The next three examples that are produced all involve the expression my own self. Adam uses the expression in reaction to an implicit statement of his mother about what he is not able to do. (285) mother: if you can't tie it maybe Robin can tie it. child: I can't. child: I can so [!!] tie my own self. (4;7,29) (286) mother: see Robin can read. mother: when you start going to school you can read too. child: I can read my own self. (4;7,29) In the above two instances, the fact that Adam’s mother makes an implicit comment on Adam’s inability to tie a knot or to read makes him insist that the opposite is the case. Adam rejects his mother’s assumption that he cannot tie a knot or is able to read. Contrary to the examples cited above, the two instances in (285) and (286) refer to skills that children slowly acquire. The last example in this three-month period is not a rejection but rather seems to be a comment on an ongoing activity. (287) child: here's the top. child: I do it my own self.

(4;7,29)

4.18.5. Adam’s use of x-self: 4;10–5;0 In the last three months of the recording, Adam produces another three examples of the intensifier. In the two instances in which the expression is associated with himself as referent of the subject noun phrase, he uses my own self, see (288) and (289). (288) adult: child: (289) adult: child:

good for you for putting all the tops on Adam. I can take them off my own self. (4;10,0) I'll show you how much is half. I can show my own self. (4;10,0)

In the one instance in which the expression is associated with his little brother as the referent of the subject noun phrase Adam uses yourself, see (290).

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

(290) child: oh dat's Mommy-'s magic xxx. brother: 0 [=! whines]. child: look in yourself.

219

(4;10,0)

The two instances of my own self in (288) and (289) do not have as much pragmatic force as the previous examples with the same expression. In both cases Adam reacts to a statement of an adult which he opposes. With the use of my own self Adam establishes himself as agent in the situation and in (289) it is evident that he relates himself to the alternative adult agent. (290) is produced when Adam is trying to make his brother look into a magic mirror. It is possible to argue both for an adverbial exclusive and inclusive use of the expression, as it is both possible that Adam wants to express that he does not want to assist his brother when looking into the mirror or that he wants to express that his brother, too, should look into the mirror. The interesting point to note is that Adam does not use your own self. It seems that this expression is reserved for controversial situations in which Adam insists on his own agency. 4.18.6. Summary In the first months of the recording, Adam uses the expression in a number of isolated instances in which he both comments on an ongoing action or in which he refuses an adult’s interference. The expression is used in rejections, or to gain control of an object when Adam’s intention is to establish himself as agent. In comparison to the other English children, Adam uses the intensifier regularly with the pragmatic force of a rejection. A more regular use of the intensifier is documented in the last year of the recording. At an age of 4;3,0, Adam produces the expression my own self for the first time and in the succeeding months this expression is almost exclusively used. Most instances of my own self involve situations in which Adam is strongly objecting to the interference of adults.

4.19. Abe’s use of x-self Abe produces a total of eight utterances with x-self. Apart from one single instance around age 3;0, Abe produces most instances of the expression around age 4;0. Comparable to all children discussed so far, Abe produces fewer examples with x-self than he does with by x-self. Most examples of

220

Intensifiers in German and English production data

x-self are produced when the expression by x-self is documented in a lower number of instances than in the preceding months. Table 49. Abe’s use of x-self and by x-self x-self by x-self

-2;9 0 7

3;0 1 9

3;3 0 6

3;6 0 7

3;9 1 3

4;0 4 1

4;3 2 2

4;6 0 1

4;9 0 1

5;0 0 0

Total 8 37

The first instance of x-self appears in the data when Abe is using the expression by x-self mainly to reject a joint activity but not necessarily an offer of help. In (291) Abe’s father directly offers help which Abe refuses. (291) father: ok let's go brush your teeth here's some toothpaste do you want me to help you? child: no you go because I'm gon (t)a brush them myself. father: ok call me if you need any help? father: are you all done? child: yeah. (3;0,16) The next utterance with x-self is not documented in the data until almost a year later. Similar to the child Adam, Abe uses the expression my own self. (292) child: no I was just pretending you hold this again I want to kick it. father: ok. child: I can hold it my own self. father: that's pretty hard isn't it? child: yeah you hold it now Daddy I think it's better if you hold it like this. (3;9,0) Parallel to the utterances in which Adam uses my own self, Abe is claiming agency in a situation. Contrary to Adam’s use of the expression, the situation is not controversial, as Abe’s father immediately lets Abe do what he wants to do. Also contrary to Adam, Abe’s utterance is not produced with as much intensity. Of the four instances that are recorded between the ages of 3;10 and 4;0, two are produced within a single context in which Abe and his parents talk about dinosaurs, see (293).

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

221

yeah all of em are smart dinosaurs (ex)cept they like to eat meat so they can't plant a garden they like to eat meat because, because it's good to em. mother: do you want to tell Daddy all the rules about fires? father: tell me. child: you think em out yourself ok? child: Dad you think em out yourself. mother: huh? child: I told Daddy to think em out himself did you know em now? mother: uhhuh. child: then tell him ok? (3;11,6)

(293) child:

Abe’s mother is asking him to tell the rules about fire, but Abe does not want to and instead asks his father to think them out. Clearly, the context is not anti-assistive. With the use of the intensifier yourself, Abe rejects the task and identifies an alternative agent, his father. In the given situation, Abe’s father is identified in relation to Abe. One other example is produced in a context in which Abe and two adults are using a stamp to print letters. Abe is debating with an adult that he wants to make the next stamp. (294) child: now can I make another name? adult: uhhuh. child: ok I'll hold it and do it myself ok? mother: ok why don't I hold it and you find the letters? child: ok I'll find the letters and you make it. (4;0,3) In the last two examples of the English intensifier x-self, Abe uses the expression to reject his father’s offer but as he formulates his rejection as a request and since his father agrees immediately, the situation cannot be described as controversial, see (295). (295) father: do you want me to help you open it? child: I could do it myself ok? father: ok.

(4;2,19)

In (296) the intensifier ourselves is used in an utterance that relates to some unspecified heavy task. Abe identifies himself and his father in relation to the dinosaurs who are supposed to do the moving. Similar to the

222

Intensifiers in German and English production data

instance in (293) the identification of alternative referent in relation to Abe seems central. (296) child: I am Daddy look hey Daddy do you want to play this with me? father: yeah will you tell me how to play? child: somebody has to be the dragon if you want to you could be the dragon maybe we both could be too. father: what would happen if nobody was the dragon? child: we'll have to move it ourselves. father: move what? child: the dragon we forgot the cannon here's the cannon (ex)cept this should be outside (ex)cept the cannon should be right here this is the boat that belongs with it the cape belongs to the knight you could be a dragon and a man. (4;1,5) Comparable to all other English children, Abe produces only a fairly limited number of instances with the intensifier x-self. Similar to Adam, the majority of instances with x-self are produced in a period in which the number of instances with the expression by x-self has dropped to a lower number. It seems to be the case that in both children the system of agentsensitive expressions is reorganized at this point of development in that intensifiers are integrated in the system and the agent-sensitive expression by x-self becomes (more) multifunctional. Contrary to Adam, it is impossible to identify a specific function for use of x-self, although there are some examples in which the rejection of assistance and the ordering of alternative referents in order to identify a central agent seem important.

4.20. Sarah’s use of x-self Sarah is the child who produces the least number of instances with agentsensitive expressions. In her data only three instances with by x-self are documented. The intensifier x-self is represented in six instances, see Table 50. Table 50. Sarah’s use of x-self and by x-self x-self by x-self

2;32;6 0 0

2;73;0 2 0

3;13;6 0 1

3;74;0 0 0

4;14;6 2 1

4;75;0 2 0

5;3

Total

0 0

6 3

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

223

Of the six instances of the intensifier x-self that are documented in the data of Sarah, two are produced towards the end of the first year of the recording. In both of these examples, the context is anti-assistive and the expression is used in relation to Sarah’s activity of cleaning her hands, see (297), or climbing out of the bathtub, see (298). (297) mother: you got nice hands huh. child: hand. child: I clean myself. […] mother: you clean em yourself? child: mmhm. (2;8,25) (298) mother: you wanna bathtub you're in the bathtub. mother: wait'll I get another face cloth. child: I come out myself. adult: wait here for Mommy. (2;11,2) In (297) the expression is used to comment on an activity that Sarah has just performed and in (298) she announces her plan to climb out of the bathtub without her mother’s help. The situation in (298) is controversial in that Sarah’s mother doesn’t want her to get out, but it seems that the expression myself is not directly related to the controversial interests of mother and child. In both examples, an activity is relevant that children typically learn to manage themselves without assistance in the first years of their life. Before the next four instances of Sarah’s use of the intensifier x-self are documented in the data, a whole year in which the child is recorded passes. In (299) Sarah is rejecting her mother’s interference and instructions in an activity that both are engaged in. (299) mother: just punch those out now. child: I can do em myself.

(4;1,18)

In the example given in (300), she directly demands that she wants to hold a toy elephant instead of having someone hold it for her. (300) child: and a elephant. child: let me hold it myself.

(4;4,25)

The context of the second example can be described as autonomous. While the activity in (299) is structured in a way that it is generally possible

224

Intensifiers in German and English production data

for both Sarah and her mother to participate in the action and Sarah uses the expression myself to reject her mother’s involvement, holding a toy elephant is more difficult to do together. Although in both examples Sarah contrasts her own participation in the action with the participation of her mother, in (300) the main function of the expression is to reject her mother as agent. Even without the expression myself, the utterance in (301) is a demand and myself functions to relate the referents to one another. It is possible to argue that myself in (300) is used as an adverbial inclusive intensifier. This would change the interpretation of the semantic contribution of myself from Sarah demanding that her mother should not hold the elephant for her to Sarah demanding that she too wants to hold the elephant. In both cases, the ordering of the referents in terms of who gets to do the action is central. In the first of the last two examples, Sarah is also reacting to her mother, who has just stated that she does not like what Sarah is doing. Although Sarah’s mother does not directly ask her daughter to stop, it is clear that Sarah is expressing her initiative in the action and also the fact that she will not have her mother stop her. (301) child: le(t) me hold one hand and one leg. mother: are you kiddin(g)? child: alright I will do it myself. child: dat funny? mother: don't.

(4;7,0)

The last example is not produced in an anti-assistive context. Rather, it seems that relating herself to her mother is central in this utterance. Since Sarah’s mother switches the topic, it is not entirely clear in which way the expression myself is related to the context, but it seems that Sarah is referring to a toy with which she can pretend to cook. Given the fact that her mother cooks in a real kitchen, one possible interpretation of Sarah’s use of myself in (302) is that the alternative referent that myself is relating to is her mother. As the context is neither anti-assistive, nor specifically characterized in another way, a central issue is the relation between the central referent Sarah and an alternative referent, Sarah’s mother. (302) adult: what do you do with it? child: I play house (a)n(d) cook myself. mother: tell her what you made the other day what we made in the baking oven. (4;7,11)

The development of non-nominative means of encoding agency

225

Sarah is the child who produces the lowest total number of agentsensitive expressions. Neither the intensifier x-self nor the related expression by x-self are represented in Sarah’s data other than in isolated instances. As Sarah uses by x-self only in three utterances it is impossible to make any general remarks about her use of the expression. In Sarah’s utterances with the intensifier x-self, the notion of identifying an agent in relation to another seems central in a few cases. 5. The German and English children’s systems of agent-sensitive expressions Much of this chapter involved the examination of the individual German and English children’s use of agent-sensitive expressions. The way in which the four expressions German allein and selbst/selber and English by x-self and x-self surfaced in the productions of the children was described following the research questions outlined at the end of chapter 2. At this point, the question if the German and the English children as a group show similarities in the organization of their systems will be considered. First, the results of the six German children will be compared with regard to which form-function relationships could be identified as being relevant in the children’s productions. The order of emergence and the way in which the children relate the expressions to the context in the course of the recording will be considered. Second, the English children’s use of agent-sensitive expressions will be looked at from the same perspective. Finally, I will consider what kind of similarities and differences the group German children and the group of English children showed in the organization of their systems. For the discussion of the results it is important to be aware of the fact that the German children were studied between the ages of 2;0 and 4;0 and the English children were studied between the ages of 2;0 and 5;0.78 Although it may therefore be expected that at the end of the recordings the German and the English children’s systems look somewhat different, the central issue to be discussed is if there are some general tendencies to be observed in the two sets of data.

5.1. The German children The data of six German children is analyzed in this study. The least extensive databases are provided for the three children Julia, Daniel and

226

Intensifiers in German and English production data

Mathias, which is also documented in the number of instances involving agent-sensitive expressions that appeared in the data. While the children Caroline, Kerstin and Simone used both the intensifier selbst/selber and the related expression allein, the three children Julia, Daniel and Mathias only produced a few isolated instances of allein and no instances of the intensifier. For the children who used both the expression allein and selbst/selber, more instances of the former are documented. In Caroline’s and in Simone’s data, the intensifier selbst/selber appears about nine months after the first instances of allein. 5.1.1. Allein When the German children begin to use the expression allein, two functions can be identified to be central. The children use allein to reject the interference of adults in their activities and to comment on their own actions. Often the children are engaged in activities which provoke the assistance of adults. In many utterances, allein is used to reject an adult’s involvement. When commenting on an action that they have successfully performed or are planning to perform, the children often refer to skills that are important aspects of their development towards an independent and competent agent. In this respect, the interpretation of allein as adverbial exclusive versus predicative often mirrors the children’s stage of nonlinguistic development. In the early recordings, the use of allein in utterances that relate to atelic event structures is symptomatic in this respect. It is a plausible scenario that a young child is assisted by an adult in activities like sitting or running. An older child, on the other hand, is able to sit and run without assistance and a predicative interpretation of allein in such utterances becomes more likely. The same shift can be observed for the use of allein in utterances relating to telic events structures like going to school. A young child is in need of assistance in this kind of activity, while an older child can be expected to perform the action without company. The fact that the non-linguistic development of children is a matter of becoming more independent step by step is also implicit in the use of the expression ganz alleine and the inclusion of the verb form kann or will in syntactically more complex utterance structures at a later point of the recordings. The two children Caroline and Kerstin make use of the expression ganz allein, and in Caroline’s data, a somewhat complementary use of ganz alleine versus alleine can be observed in utterances that she uses to comment on a skill versus utterances that she uses to reject an adult’s interference.

The German and English children’s systems of agent-sensitive expressions

227

Towards the end of the recordings, the system of agent-sensitive expressions becomes (more) multifunctional in that the children include not only the predicative use of allein, but also isolated instances of anticausative von allein. For all three children, a reorganization of their systems is not only marked by the inclusion of new functions, but also by a shift in the pragmatic force of an utterance. While the majority of the utterances with allein are used as rejections at the onset of the study, in the course of the recordings, the proportion of the use of allein in comments and statements becomes continuously larger. For the child Simone, this kind of shift can also be observed with regard to a use of the expression allein that is, apart from Simone, only documented once in the data of the child Kerstin. In a number of instances, Simone uses allein as a means to gain or maintain control of an object that others want to use. The kind of situations that this use of the expression relates to are often ones in which sharing is an issue. Initially, Simone uses allein in such situations exclusively to gain or maintain control of objects. Later on, she also uses allein to comment on the details of a sharing situation. 5.1.2. Selbst/selber With the exception of the child Kerstin, the German children, when using selbst/selber, produce mainly the adverbial exclusive use type. All children produce the expression selbst/selber in fewer instances than the expression allein. One reason for the finding that selbst/selber is not documented as frequently as allein is that in the data of the two German children Caroline and Simone, the first use of the intensifier selber is documented about nine months after the first instance of allein. Viewed in relation to Caroline’s and Simone’s use of the expression allein, selbst/selber enters their systems in a slightly different manner but to the same effect. In the data of Caroline, the expression selbst/selber is documented regularly from the age of 2;4 onwards. At this point of development, the expression allein has been used by Caroline for almost a year. Before selbst/selber enters the system, Caroline produces a number of instances with allein referring to the contexts of preparing a slice of bread or getting dressed/undressed. In these utterances, the expression allein is mainly used to reject her parent’s assistance. At the time when selbst/selber begins to appear in the data, the first examples of Caroline’s use of allein to comment on or praise a recently acquired skill are documented. At the same time, the use of allein in the contexts of preparing a slice of bread or getting dressed/undressed

228

Intensifiers in German and English production data

disappears from the data and is replaced by the use of the expression selbst/selber in these contexts. This shift correlates with the use of selbst/selber as a means to express greater autonomy in situations in which the identification of the child as agent in relation to other agents becomes a central issue. While in the data of Caroline the highest number of instances with the expression selbst/selber is documented when Caroline also uses the expression allein most frequently, in Simone’s data, selbst/selber begins to appear at a point in development when utterances with allein are documented less frequently. In contrast to her use of the expression allein, Simone uses selbst/selber in utterances in which joint participation is not necessarily an issue. Rather the expression is often used to establish Simone’s role as an agent, in many cases in contrast to alternative agents. In Simone’s data, the increasing importance of expressing autonomy is also documented by the fact that when selbst/selber is introduced to the system, the expression is almost exclusively used in utterances that refer to important skills. Towards the end of the recordings, both children do not primarily rely on the function of the speech act such as making a rejection when using the expressions allein and selbst/selber. Rather, allein is more often used in statements and comments and the function of the intensifier selbst/selber in terms of identifying a central agent in relation to alternative less central agents becomes important. The data of the German child Kerstin is somewhat different as mainly the adverbial inclusive use type of intensifiers is documented. Despite this fact, her use of selbst/selber is similar to the other children’s use of agentsensitive expressions as utterances with adverbial inclusive selbst/selber also function as rejections. On a more subtle level, Kerstin rejects her mother’s role as possessor or distributor when she uses the intensifier to negotiate the details of her involvement in an event. The three children with the least extensive databases, Julia, Mathias and Daniel, only produce a few isolated instances of the expression allein and it is difficult to generalize across these examples. However, it seems to be the case that the general tendency of allein being the more frequently and earlier used expression is also implicit in their data. 5.1.3. Summary The German children use the expression allein in a variety of functions and contexts. Adverbial exclusive allein, predicative allein and allein in anti-

The German and English children’s systems of agent-sensitive expressions

229

causative contexts is used to reject the parent’s assistance, joint participation or responsibility for an action. In the data of the child Simone, allein is also documented when she is claiming or trying to maintain agency in an event. In the data of all German children, there is a general tendency to use the expression allein more frequently and at earlier point in development than the expression selbst/selber. The expression allein is applicable to a wide range of relevant contexts and adjusts its semantic contribution to the meaning of a given utterance depending on the details of a child’s non-linguistic development. Together with the expression ganz alleine, the children can express and negotiate various degrees of their active and competent participation in an event. The entry of the expression selbst/selber into the system marks a shift towards expressing greater autonomy often relating to the children’s role as an agent in planned activities. The importance of the speech act dimension of utterances with an agent-sensitive expression decreases as the children’s need to negotiate their agentive involvement in activities becomes less with greater age and a more elaborate use of the expression selbst/selber to identify themselves as competent participants of their discourse is documented. It is possible that the continuum between adverbial exclusive allein relating to anti-assistive contexts and predicative allein relating to a context of non-joint activities makes the expression more easily accessible for children at early phases of language development. If used adverbial exclusively, the expression is semantically transparent in that the meaning of ‘without company’ is related, albeit distinct from ‘without assistance’. If, on the other hand, selbst/selber is used adverbial exclusive, the child cannot rely on a related meaning of the expression. Rather, the additional semantic value of selbst/selber in terms of the ordering of referents calls for relating the expression to more complex contextual conditions.

5.2. The English children The data of six English children were analyzed in this study. The six children Ross, Nina, Shem, Adam, Abe and Sarah all produce the expression by x-self in a number of utterances and all of the children produce at least one example of the intensifier x-self. In comparison to the German children, the number of utterances with intensifiers is generally lower in the data of the English children. There is no indication in the data of a certain order of emergence of the intensifier x-self and the related expression by x-self. Rather, it seems that when the English children begin

230

Intensifiers in German and English production data

to use the expression by x-self, they also use the intensifier x-self in isolated instances. 5.2.1. By x-self All English children begin to use the expression by x-self towards the end of their third year of life. Among the functions documented for the children’s use of this expression are comments on their skills or on independent activities like crossing the street. Similar to the German children, utterances in which by x-self is used often relate to activities that are important regarding the children’s development towards a competent, independent agent. The tendency of x-self being interpreted as adverbial exclusive relating to anti-assistive contexts in the early recordings and in the later recordings, the tendency of by x-self being interpreted as predicative relating to non-joint activities is documented in a similar manner as in the German data. Predicative by x-self is used by the children towards the end of the recordings when they have also further developed their non-linguistic skills. The child Abe, who produces a large number of instances with the predicative use of by x-self, uses the expression in a number of instances that do not involve himself as a potential participant in a joint activity. Parallel to the use of ganz allein in the data of the German children, the expression all by x-self is also associated with the step by step development of the children’s performance in activities. The two children Ross and Sarah almost exclusively use all by x-self in their utterances with agent-sensitive expressions. In the data of most of the children, the anticausative expression by itself appears towards the end of the recording. The only child for whom a large number of this kind of expression is documented in the data is Adam, who uses the expressions from early on to discuss cause-effect relationships. In a small number of instances is by itself used by the children to reject responsibility. 5.2.2. X-self Although all English children produce at least one example with the intensifier x-self, with the exception of the child Adam, intensifiers are only documented in isolated instances in the data of the English children. When using the intensifier x-self, the English children produce the adverbial exclusive use type in a majority of instances. In the data of the children, the

The German and English children’s systems of agent-sensitive expressions

231

expression x-self relates to contexts in which the children’s skills and their increasing independence are an issue. Towards the end of the recordings, the children tend to use x-self in utterances in which there is some indication that the ordering of referents is important. For all children, it seems that there is no explicit order in which the expressions x-self and by x-self appear in the data. In the data of the two children Adam and Abe, the majority of utterances including an intensifier are documented at the onset of their fifth year of life. At the same time, the number of instances in which they use of the expression by x-self decreases. While the instances of intensive x-self that Abe produces in this period are similar in function to his previous use of the intensifiers, in his fifth year of life, Adam introduces the expression my own self into his system. Adam uses utterances with my own self relating to anti-assistive contexts as a strong means of rejection. This is an interesting point to note as none of the other children use either the expression by x-self or the expression x-self systematically in utterances that function as rejections. In the data of the children Ross and Shem, the expressions x-self and by x-self are produced in succeeding utterances relating to the same context. 5.2.3. Summary The English children use the expressions by x-self and x-self in a variety of functions including adverbial exclusive and predicative by x-self. The adverbial inclusive use type of the intensifier x-self is used in isolated instances. While the majority of instances with the intensifier also relate to contexts in which the children’s skills are an issue, towards the end of the recordings, the notion of relating a central agent to alternative agents becomes more important. The way in which the use of by x-self and x-self is documented in the data of the English children, it seems that there is only limited indication that the two expressions are differentiated. Given the close relation of adverbial exclusive x-self and adverbial exclusive by xself, this is not necessarily surprising, but in contrast to the findings in the data of the German children, it is also impossible to correlate the appearance of x-self with any other linguistic phenomena in the children’s use of agent-sensitive expressions. There is no specific point in time after which intensifiers are more regularly documented in the data of any of the children after having been largely absent. On the contrary, isolated instances of intensifiers are documented throughout the recordings. This is also true for the English child Adam, who introduces a new expression into

232

Intensifiers in German and English production data

his system in his fifth year of life that he does link up with a specific function, my own self. The fact that there are a number of instances in which the use of x-self and by x-self is documented in succeeding and almost identical utterances further contributes to the impression that the children make no clear distinction between the two kinds of expression. It is possible that in early phases of language development, this lack of differentiation is an effect of the close structural relation of the expressions by x-self and x-self. Contrary to German, which uses the two different forms allein and selbst/selber, in English adverbial exclusive by x-self and x-self are formally almost identical.

5.3. Similarities and differences The previous two sections have provided an account of the general tendencies that can be observed in the German and English children’s use of agent-sensitive expressions. Some of the children display idiosyncrasies in their data in that they either produce a relatively large amount of a specific expression (cf. Kerstin, Adam, or Abe) or in that they produce a comparatively low number of instances with agent-sensitive expressions (cf. Kerstin, Sarah, Nina). Despite this fact, it was shown that there are a number of findings that seem to characterize the German and the English children as a group. On the basis of the general tendencies that were found within a group, it is possible to look for the similarities and differences between the German and the English children. In the following, the three findings that seem most relevant in this respect will be discussed. First, the most obvious similarity of the German and the English children is that they produce more instances of the expression allein and by x-self than they do of the intensifiers selbst/selber and x-self. Second, although the tendencies of the German and the English children are similar with regard to the proportions with which intensifiers and related expressions are documented in the data, the German and the English children are also different with regard to the amount of intensifiers that surface in their productions. With the English child Adam being the only exception, the English children only produce isolated instances with intensifiers, while in the data of the German children, intensifiers are documented more regularly. Third, a major difference between the German and the English children’s use of agentsensitive expressions is documented in the kind of speech act that the children perform when producing utterances with agent-sensitive expressions.

The German and English children’s systems of agent-sensitive expressions

233

5.3.1. Allein and by x-self With the English child Sarah being the only exception, all children in the study produce a larger number of instances with the expression allein or by x-self than they do with the intensifiers selbst/selber or x-self. It was already argued with regard to the German children’s use of allein that an expression that can also mean ‘without company’ might be more easily accessible for children at early stages of language development. Although the two target systems of agent-sensitive expressions in German and English are structurally very similar in that the semantic contribution of the intensifiers seems close to identical to that of the related expressions allein and by x-self in utterances relating to telic events, the subtle differences between the two expression’s semantic contribution may be more relevant to the language learner than these similarities suggest. Given the choice between relating an expression that can also mean ‘without company’ to an anti-assistive context and relating an expression that is also relevant with regard to structuring the referents of the discourse in terms of centrality to the same context, the former kind of expression seems semantically more transparent and thereby more easily accessible than the latter. Although ‘without company’ cannot be understood literally when the expressions allein or by x-self are used by a child when referring to an activity in which both the child and an adult participate, the semantic contribution aims at the notion of jointness in the event. On the contrary, the notion of jointness is not in the same way implicitly encoded in the adverbial exclusive intensifier selbst/selber and x-self. As pointed out repeatedly, the systems of agent-sensitive expressions that German or English children acquire are similar in that in utterances relating to telic event structures, the semantic contribution of allein and selbst/selber or x-self and by x-self seems close to identical. Despite the fact that contexts that are explicitly structured as antiassistive have a tendency to be linked up with the expressions allein and by x-self, and despite the fact that contexts that are explicitly structured as anti-autonomous show a tendency to link up with the intensifiers selbst/selber and x-self, if explicit contexts are missing, sentences seem very close in meaning. It must be expected that at some point in development, children become aware of the similarity of the semantic contribution of allein and selbst/selber and of x-self and by x-self in some contexts, but it must also be expected that the children become aware of the fact that allein and by x-self in all contexts interact with the notion of (non-) jointness, whereas the intensifiers selbst/selber and x-self transport the notion of the ordering of referents. In the course of the non-linguistic

234

Intensifiers in German and English production data

development of a child, it seems that the notion of (non-)jointness is a more basic issue than the notion of the ordering of referents. Before a child is independent enough to relate him-/herself to others in terms of centrality, the child must learn to act independent as an agent. 5.3.2. Selbst/selber versus x-self With regard to the children’s use of the intensifier selbst/selber and x-self, it seems an interesting point to note that despite similar extensive data bases and a similar age period studied, the English children produce proportionally fewer instances of the expression x-self. It was shown earlier that the intensifiers German selbst/selber and English x-self largely correspond on a one-to-one basis regarding their semantic and pragmatic properties. Furthermore, the way in which these expressions are related to the expressions allein and by x-self is also very similar if not identical in the two languages. With regard to their semantic contribution to a child’s utterance, no differences in the German and the English children’s use of the adverbial exclusive intensifier should be expected. On the other hand, an obvious difference between the two languages is documented in the morphosyntactic properties of the expressions. The English intensifier xself and the related expression by x-self are almost identical, with the only difference being that by x-self has the structure of a prepositional phrase. Although in English by x-self can mean ‘without company’ just as allein in German, English has another expression for the meaning of ‘without company’, alone. It is possible that the semantic similarity of the adverbial exclusive use of x-self and by x-self, plus the fact that the expressions are morphosyntactically similar and that another expression with a similar meaning is available creates a difficulty for the child. English children do not only have to acquire the subtle differences of x-self and by x-self when used in utterances relating to telic event structures, they also have to learn which of the two expressions links up with which meaning. The fact that by x-self is the more frequently attested expression in the data of the English children seems to demonstrate that the difficulties are rooted in additionally integrating x-self into the system.

The German and English children’s systems of agent-sensitive expressions

235

5.3.3. Rejections The final issue to be discussed here is that the German children often use the expressions allein and selbst/selber in utterances that function as rejections. With the exception of the English child Adam, who uses the expression my own self in a similar manner, neither the intensifier x-self nor the related expression by x-self are systematically used in rejections by the English children. It is difficult to speculate on the nature of the origin of this finding. The major question that needs to be answered is whether the English children did not use the expressions in rejections because they generally produce fewer rejections, or if rejections involving the expression x-self and by x-self are not documented in the data because the children have different linguistic strategies in controversial situations. If the differences stem from the fact that English children generally produce fewer rejections, the nature of the child-adult interaction may be the reason. On the other hand, it is possible that the German data are not representative in that they contain an exceptionally high number of controversial situations. A major drawback of the German data in this respect is that all three children were recorded when the same researcher was present who also interacted with the children. It is therefore possible that the number of rejections and controversial situations is not a general feature of German child-adult interaction, but a particular feature of this corpus. Although the adult’s utterances were not examined, the contextual information often revealed that the researcher and the other adults kept interfering with the children’s activities, which often led to controversial situations. To rule out the possibility that the interactional style had an effect on the speech acts that the children made use of when producing utterances with selbst/selber and allein, other German data would have to be analyzed. If individual (or even cultural) differences in the interactional style are not the reason for the differences, they could be structurally motivated by the language system. In this case, the various means that children use to encode agency and control in events would have to be investigated. For instance, Deutsch and Budwig (1983) have demonstrated that German children use possessives to claim control of objects. In another study, Budwig (1989, 1995) investigated English children’s use of self-reference forms to encode different degrees of agency and control. English children use the possessive pronoun my in subject position in utterances about the self involving control while the personal pronoun I in subject position tends to be linked up with assertions. For German children, no comparative findings have been reported.

236

Intensifiers in German and English production data

5.3.4. Summary In this section, the similarities and the differences of the German and the English children’s use of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions were briefly discussed. All children show a preference for the expression allein or by x-self when talking about themselves as agents in activities that the children begin to master without assistance. It was argued that the English children’s production of proportionally fewer instances of the intensifier x-self might originate from the fact that adverbial exclusive x-self and adverbial exclusive by x-self are not only similar in their semantic and pragmatic function, but also with regard to their morphosyntactic properties. Finally, the frequently attested German children’s use of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions in utterances that function as rejections may either be a result of the interactional style between children and adults, or structurally motivated. With regard to these findings, some implications for further research will be mentioned in the final chapter. 6. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns This section provides an analysis of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns regarding the order of emergence of these expressions in the data of the six English children. In chapter 2, previous research on the acquisition of reflexive pronouns was discussed with a focus on what is known about the interrelation of the formally identical expressions in the acquisition process. Most of the studies reported investigate the acquisition of reflexive pronouns and relevant syntactic aspects thereof. The non-syntactic aspects of the acquisition of the expression x-self on the other hand have so far not received a lot of attention. It was argued that a full account of how English children learn to use the expression x-self in different functions including as an intensifier, a reflexive pronoun and also in non-locally bound instances, cannot rest exclusively on a description of how children come to know the syntactic principles underlying the expression’s use. Non-syntactic aspects of the children’s use of x-self, such as how they relate the expression to their discourse, must be integrated in a description of x-self in the acquisition process. For the interpretation of the children’s non-target treatment of x-self both in experimental studies and in studies analyzing production data, it is important to know which regularities besides the

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

237

absence of syntactic principles characterize the children’s initial systems of x-self. On the basis of the results that were reported in the previous chapter regarding the emergence of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions, this chapter will focus on the order of emergence of the intensifier x-self, the expression by x-self and the reflexive pronoun x-self in the data of the six English children analyzed here. The way in which the children make use of intensive x-self and related by x-self is assumed to be a relevant indicator of how the children organize their system of agentsensitive expressions in early phases of language development. It was argued earlier that the fact that children under an age of 4;0 (cf. Chien and Wexler 1990) systematically misinterpret reflexive pronouns as pronouns might be related to their acquisition of the pragmatic properties and discourse relevance of intensifiers. The previous chapter has shown that in this respect, the related expression by x-self must also be integrated in an account of children’s early use of (by) x-self. In the study of McDaniel et al. (1990) the position is formulated that around the age of four, children show signs of acquiring the adnominal use type of x-self. McDaniel et al. (1990) claim that before the children have full knowledge of this use type, they also accept x-self in subject position. The analysis in this chapter will mainly focus on the results of the studies of Chien and Wexler (1990) and McDaniel et al. (1990). While it is impossible to provide a functional analysis of the children’s use of reflexive x-self in the data analyzed here, the relative order of the appearance of reflexive pronouns and intensifiers in the productions of the children will be the central issue in this chapter, see (303). (303) In which order do intensifiers, the related expression by x-self and reflexive pronouns emerge in the production data of the English children? The following analysis rests on the assumption that the point in development at which intensifiers, related agent-sensitive expressions and reflexive pronouns surface in the data of the children is relevant information regarding the structure of children’s early systems of the expression x-self. It is assumed that if the children make use of a certain expression, they do so by recruiting relevant information from their early systems. The research question repeated above also aims at identifying similarities regarding the children’s behavior in comprehension experiments and longitudinal production data. If the results from

238

Intensifiers in German and English production data

comprehension experiments can be integrated with results from the analysis of production data, this allows inferences about the general structure of the children’s systems with regard to the use of x-self. In a first step of the analysis, the total number of instances with x-self in the three different functions will be compared. In a second step of the analysis, the emergence of the expressions in individual children’s data will be discussed. Finally, an account of the instances in which the children used referential but nonanaphoric x-self will be given. All examples of x-self in subject position will be discussed with regard to the question if there is any indication in the data that these instances can be interpreted as adnominal x-self without preceding head.

6.1. The order of emergence of intensifiers and reflexive pronouns This section provides a quantitative analysis of the six English children’s use of the expression x-self as an intensifier, as a reflexive pronoun and as the agent-sensitive expression by x-self. First, the number of instances in which the three kinds of expressions occurred will be compared. Second, the relative number of instances of the three functions of the expressions will be looked at in terms of at which point they emerge in the data. As Table 51 illustrates, in the data of all six English-speaking children a larger number of the use of x-self as a reflexive pronoun is documented than of the use of x-self as an intensifier. As was already mentioned in the previous chapter, all children but Sarah produce more instances of the expression by x-self than they do of the intensifier x-self. Table 51. Intensifiers, reflexive pronouns and the expression by x-self intensive x-self reflexive x-self by x-self

Ross 5 25 20

Nina 1 21 18

Shem 5 8 14

Adam 19 72 21

Abe 8 66 37

Sarah 6 32 3

Given the close relation of the intensifier x-self and the expression by xself in terms of their semantic and pragmatic properties in the majority of event types, it seems justified to compare the relative occurrence of reflexive x-self with the relative occurrence of the intensifier x-self and the expression by x-self. Looked at from this perspective, the six children behave somewhat differently. Compared to the number of instances in which Shem uses the reflexive pronoun, he presents the only case where

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

239

more instances of the intensifier and the expression by x-self are used. Ross, Nina and Adam produce about as many instances of the reflexive pronoun x-self as they do of non-reflexive uses of the expression. Recall from the previous section that in addition to the 21 examples of the expression by x-self, Adam uses anti-causative by itself in 18 instances. Sarah is the only child who hardly produces any intensifiers or uses by xself, but reflexive pronouns are frequently attested in her data. In the data of Abe, 66 instances of the reflexive pronoun are documented and more than half as many instances of by x-self and the intensifier, but recall from the previous section that about half of the examples with by x-self document the predicative use of the expression. 6.1.1. Shem The fact that Shem only uses a small number of reflexive x-self is also documented in the order of appearance of the expressions, see Figure 4.

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2;3 reflexive x-self

2;6

2;9

3;0

intensive x-self

3;3 by x-self

Figure 4. Shem’s use of the reflexive pronoun, intensifier, and by x-self Up to an age of 2;6, reflexive pronouns do not appear in Shem’s data. In the majority of instances, Shem uses x-self as part of the construction by xself. Shem mainly uses by x-self to comment on his developing skills and in many cases combines the expression with the verb form can. It is not until the end of the recording that Shem begins to produce reflexive x-self in a larger number of instances. Figure 4 shows that Shem’s system is in the first months mainly based on the expression by x-self and the intensifier xself. Shem’s utterances document that in his third year of life, he knows that

240

Intensifiers in German and English production data

x-self and by x-self can be used in situations in which the negotiation of his role as an increasingly independent agent is relevant. Initially, in most of his productions involving (by) x-self, the notion of relating himself to a more competent adult is central. Activities that play a role in these utterances are mostly ones in which Shem cannot yet participate as a fully independent agent. Although this usually implies a contrast between the adults and Shem, the establishment of Shem’s participation in the event is a central function of the expressions x-self and by x-self in his utterances. As the use of x-self to indicate a reflexive relationship is documented at a later stage in development, it must be assumed that Shem’s knowledge of x-self is first mainly characterized by the semantic and the pragmatic properties of the expressions as documented in his early use. It is quite possible that in an experimental situation, in which Shem is asked to interpret a sentence involving reflexive x-self, Shem would base his decision of how x-self can be used on knowledge as documented in his use of (by) x-self as an intensifier and as a related agent-sensitive expression. Given the fact that, in this case, knowledge about the general abilities of children and the way in which referents are related to each other in terms of agency are important parts of his system, a non-target interpretation of reflexive x-self that ignores the syntactic requirements of the expression seems quite possible. 6.1.2. Ross Including the one example of reflexive x-self that Ross produces in the first three-month period, the three expressions are present from the beginning.

100% 50% 0% 2;6

2;9

3;0

3;3

reflexive x-self

3;6

3;9

4;3

intensive x-self

4;6

4;9

by x-self

Figure 5. Ross’s use of the reflexive pronoun, intensifier, and by x-self

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

241

Although the intensifier x-self is only documented in a few examples, the agent-sensitive expression by x-self appears in a relatively high number of instances. Before Ross reaches his fifth year of life, intensifiers and by xself outnumber the use of reflexive x-self in most three-month periods. While no recordings are available for the months between the age of 3;10 and 4;0, in the subsequent recordings, proportionally less instances of by xself are documented and, at the same time, a larger proportion of instances with reflexive x-self. Given the fact that in Chien and Wexler’s study (1990) children under an age of four tended to misinterpret reflexive pronouns as if they were pronouns, it is possible that the trend to be observed in the data of Shem and Ross is based on a related mechanism. It is possible that the knowledge of the use of x-self at early stages is mainly influenced by the pragmatic and discourse properties of intensive x-self and the expression by x-self than by the syntactic requirements and implications of reflexive pronouns. Although the number of instances in which the three expressions occur are generally higher in the data of Ross than in the data of Shem, the trend to be observed until the two children reach an age of 4;0 is similar. 6.1.3. Nina Apart from the three-month period between the ages of 2;4–2;6, Nina’s data looks similar to that of Shem and Ross, see Figure 6.

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2;3 reflexive x-self

2;6

2;9

3;0

intensive x-self

3;3 by x-self

Figure 6. Nina’s use of the reflexive pronoun, intensifier, and by x-self

242

Intensifiers in German and English production data

There are only a few number of instances with intensifiers. Similar to Shem, no recordings are made after Nina has reached an age of 3;3. Until this age, instances with the expression by x-self tend to outnumber instances with reflexive x-self. Just as in the data of Shem and Ross, towards the end of the recordings, there is a trend of more instances with reflexive x-self to be documented in the data. Compared to Shem and Ross, similar inferences about Nina’s knowledge of use of x-self can be made on the basis of her productions. A tendency to use (by) x-self in utterances in which the characterization of a referent in terms of his independence, agency and relation to other agents is relevant can be observed especially in the two three-month periods that cover the age from 2;7–2;9 and 2;10–3;0. This information is largely irrelevant for the interpretation of reflexive xself, which occurs in greater numbers from age 3;3 onwards in Nina’s data. 6.1.4. Adam Adam is the only child in whose data a relatively high number of instances with the intensifier x-self is documented, see Figure 7.

100% 50% 0% 2;6 2;9 3;0 3;3 3;6 3;9 4;0 4;3 4;6 4;9 5;0 5;3

reflexive x-self

intensive x-self

by x-self

by itself

Figure 7. Adam’s use of the reflexive pronoun, intensifier, and by x-self The majority of instances with x-self occur after Adam has reached an age of 4;6. Up to this age, he mainly uses the expression by x-self in adverbial exclusive contexts. Compared to the other five English children, Adam also produces a relatively high number of instances with by itself, most of these instances occur in Adam’s data after he has reached an age of 3;6. All expression types are represented in the data of Adam from early on.

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

243

With regard to the children discussed so far, there is no comparable development of the proportions of reflexive pronoun versus agent-sensitive expression. It was already mentioned in the previous section that once the expression x-self is represented in Adam’s data, it is used multifunctional. The proportion of reflexive pronouns is relatively high in most of the intervals and only drops to 40% in the three intervals covering the age from 3;10–4;6. In the previous section, it was shown that the system of agentsensitive expressions is reorganized as Adam begins to use the expression my own self as a means to reject the interference of others and establish himself as agent. About five months after my own self appears in Adam’s data as an agent-sensitive expression, the same expression is used for the first time as a reflexive pronoun. A total of five such instances are documented in the last months of the recordings. With regard to how Adam’s form-function pairings are organized in a system of possible uses of the expression x-self, the use of my own self as both an agent-sensitive expression and as a reflexive pronoun is interesting, as Adam seems to be aware of the fact that x-self can serve functions as different as that of an intensifier and a reflexive pronoun. Similar to the emergence of x-self in the data of the other children, it is an interesting point to note that the function of my own self as an agent-sensitive expression is documented before the use of the expression as a reflexive pronoun. In comparison to the other children discussed so far, Adam’s system is more multifunctional from the beginning, including also reflexive x-self and the expression by itself. His use of the expression (by) x-self implies that at early stages of language development, he has access to knowledge both typical of agent-sensitive expressions and typical of reflexive pronouns. While most English children do not make a lot of use of agent-sensitive expressions and intensifiers as a means of rejection, Adam introduces the expression my own self to his system around the age of 4;0 and in comparison to other agent-sensitive expressions, almost exclusively reserves the expression for this function.

244

Intensifiers in German and English production data

6.1.5. Abe As Figure 8 illustrates, Abe produces reflexive pronouns and the expression by x-self from the onset of the recordings. The intensifier x-self is not documented in his data until he reaches the end of his fourth year of life. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2;6

2;9

3;0

3;3

3;6

reflexive x-self

3;9

4;0

4;3

intensive x-self

4;6

4;9

5;0

by x-self

Figure 8. Abe’s use of the reflexive pronoun, intensifier, and by x-self The data of Abe is similar to that of the children Shem, Ross and Nina in that in the first year of the recordings, the use of by x-self dominates. Apart from an isolated instance of x-self at an age of 3;0, the intensifier appears in the data from age 3;9 onwards. At about the same age the majority of instances produced by Abe involve the use of reflexive x-self. Until an age of 3;6, Abe links the use of (by) x-self mainly to instances in which assistance in an activity or the negotiation of joint activities is an issue. Recall that the predicative use of the expression by x-self relating to contexts in which joint participation is an issue plays a large role in Abe’s use of the expression. Regarding the organization of his early form-function pairings, just as in the case of Shem, Ross and Nina, the way in which referents are related to each other in terms of who is participating how in an action is more central than Abe’s use of x-self as a reflexive pronoun. 6.1.6. Sarah The English child Sarah and the German child Kerstin are the only children in the study for whom less instances of the intensifier x-self and

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

245

selbst/selber than instances of the agent-sensitive expression by x-self and allein are documented, see Figure 9.

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2 ;9 3 ;0 3 ;3 3 ;6 3 ;9 4 ;3 4 ;6 4 ;9 5 ;0 5 ;3 r e fle x iv e x -s e lf

in te n siv e x -se lf

b y x -self

Figure 9. Sarah’s use of the reflexive pronoun, intensifier, and by x-self Until Sarah reaches an age of 4;0, only isolated instances of intensive and reflexive x-self are documented in the data. The first examples with the intensifier x-self and the related expression by x-self do not appear in the data of Sarah before the end of her third year of life. From an age of 3;3 onwards, reflexive x-self also appears in the data. On the basis of such a limited amount of instances of all three types of expression, it is difficult to compare Sarah’s data to the data of the other children in the study. It seems worth mentioning, though, that similar to all other English children from an age of 4;0 onwards, reflexive pronouns regularly appear in her data. 6.1.7. Summary The analysis of the emergence of the three types of expression in the data of the English children has shown that in their early productions, the use of the expression by x-self is often dominant in comparison to the other expressions. In some cases, first isolated instances of the intensifier x-self are documented together with the expression by x-self. If inferences about the children’s early system of (by) x-self can be made on the basis of their productions, it seems that the function of x-self with regard to the discourse relevance and pragmatic properties of the expression is more central to the children than the function of x-self to signal a coreferential relationship. For the child Adam, in whose data a multifunctional use of the expression (by)

246

Intensifiers in German and English production data

x-self is documented almost from the onset of the recordings, the pragmatic and discourse properties of the expression my own self are relevant in instances that are documented at an earlier stage than the use of my own self to signal coreference. For all children for whom the corpora provide data for several years, the period around the age of 4;0 seems to mark a reorganization of their systems. While before an age of 4;0 mostly by x-self and isolated instances of the intensifier x-self are documented, after an age of 4;0 reflexive x-self appears more regularly in the data of the children. Adam is the only child whose use of reflexive x-self proportionally decreases in his fifth year of life. In this period, the expression my own self begins to appear following similar regularities as agent-sensitive (by) x-self and reflexive x-self in terms of order of appearance. In chapter 2, the results of Chien and Wexler’s comprehension study (1990) were discussed. The focus of interest for the present study is the results of their studies in which children under an age of four participated. Below, results of the children’s interpretation of personal pronouns versus reflexive pronouns in object position are illustrated. Table 52 is identical to Table 7 in chapter 2. Table 52. Referential properties of her/herself in mismatch conditions79 Mama Bear is touching her. Bound interpretation Non-bound interpretation Mama Bear is touching herself. Non-bound interpretation Bound interpretation

<4

4-5

5-6

6-7

Adults

70% 30%

60% 40%

50% 50%

24% 76%

0% 100%

70% 30%

33% 67%

7% 93%

1% 99%

0% 100%

Under an age of four, 70% of the children in Chien and Wexler’s (1990) study misinterpret the referent of the pronoun in a sentence like Mama Bear is touching her to be coreferential with the referent of the subject noun phrase. When asked to interpret a sentence like Mama Bear is touching herself, 70% of the children under four misinterpret the reflexive pronoun to have a different referent than the subject noun phrase. For the present study, the most relevant aspect of Chien and Wexler’s (1990) analysis is that they give different kinds of explanation for the two types of non-target behavior of the children. While the children’s non-target treatment of the pronoun is explained by the influence of a particular target structure involving personal pronouns that is supposed to license the children’s

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

247

behavior, the non-target treatment of reflexive pronouns is explained by the limited performance factors of the children. It was argued that Chien and Wexler’s position is based on a description of the use of the expression xself that neglects the pragmatic properties and discourse function as represented in the use of the expression as an intensifier. As children’s input includes both the use of x-self as a reflexive pronoun and as an intensifier, there is no reason to assume that children exclusively derive their information regarding the use of the expression x-self from instances that involve reflexive pronouns. It was shown in the analysis of the present section that the first productions of children that involve x-self often display a non-referential use of the expression. Rather than starting to use x-self as a reflexive pronoun, the children produce utterances with the expression by x-self that in many ways functions similar to the intensifier x-self. Although instances with the intensifier are rare in the language of the English children, the way in which they use by x-self documents that, for the children, the pragmatic properties and the discourse function of (by) x-self seem to be more relevant at early stages of development than the function of x-self as a reflexive pronoun. Until an age of about four, the children predominantly use by x-self and x-self as a means to structure their discourse in terms of the agentive properties of the participants. Reflexive pronouns are gradually included in the children’s productions and appear more regularly from an age of four onwards. The data of Adam is organized somewhat differently but also displays signs of reorganization at an age of four. The results of the analysis of the production data fit in well with the results of Chien and Wexler’s (1990) comprehension study. While the nontarget interpretation of personal pronouns is only gradually given up, the non-target interpretation of reflexive x-self drops from 70% in the group of children under an age of four to 33% in the group of children above an age of four. It is possible that around the age of four, the children’s systems are reorganized in a way that is not only documented in the way in which children interpret instances of reflexive x-self in comprehension studies, but also documented in the way in which x-self surfaces in their productions. At about the same time when reflexive pronouns are interpreted as signals of local coreference, these expressions are more frequently attested in the children’s productions. Many of the children’s early productions with referential x-self make reference to direct body contact, see (304) and (305).

248

Intensifiers in German and English production data

(304) child: don’t hurt yourself. (305) child: I won’t cut myself with that.

(Adam, 3;10) (Adam, 3;4,0)

Especially utterances such as (304) could be interpreted as formulaic displaying no target-like knowledge of the expression’s reflexive function. Recall that young English children tend to analyze reflexive pronouns as consisting of a genitive determiner and nominal self. In utterances as (304) and (305) such an interpretation does not provoke a conflict with the locality requirement of English reflexive pronouns. Rather, a more targetlike realization of the reflexive properties of x-self may be reflected by utterances in which a concrete interpretation of, for instance, myself as my self is less appropriate, see (306) and (307). (306) child: I can help myself # too. (307) child: I’m not scared of myself.

(Adam, 4;6,0) (Adam, 4;6,0)

While in (304) and (305) Adam uses verbs that denote direct body contact, (306) and (307) refer to events in which the reflexive pronoun signals coreference too, but does not license an interpretation of x-self that is mainly substantial. Although no thourough analysis is presented here, it should be noted that utterances of the type illustrated in (306) and (307) seem largely absent from the data of the children before they have reached an age of 4;0. Thus the four utterances cited above are a case in point regarding a pairing of form and function that develops from a concrete to a more abstract meaning, but a more detailed analysis would be necessary. The last issue to be addressed here is what information the children possibly make use of when systematically misinterpreting reflexive x-self. Both the fact that the use of intensive x-self is associated with discourse prominence and with contrasting agents may contribute to the misinterpretation of x-self in a sentence like Mama Bear is touching herself. In the children’s productions with (by) x-self, it is implied that an adult is not to participate in an action even if the situation is noncontrastive. By the use of the expression (by) x-self, a contrast between a central and active and a non-central and inactive participant of the discourse is established. It is possible that in a context with characters like Mama Bear and Goldilocks, children assume that a contrast regarding the competent involvement of the participant in activities or the completion of a task is implied. This would license an interpretation of x-self as referring to the most prominent discourse character.

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

249

Another reason could be purely morphosyntactic. As was already discussed in comparison to Norwegian pronouns (1.2.3. chapter 2), in English, third person possessive pronouns can either refer to the subject or to the object referent, see (308). (308) Annikai touches heri/j leg. It is possible that together with the children’s analysis of x-self into a possessive pronoun and the nominal self at early stages of language development, the non-subject oriented interprtation of the possessive pronoun in sentences like (309) contributes to a non-target interpretation of third person reflexives in English. (309) Annikai touches heriself.

6.2. The expression x-self in subject position The next section is devoted to the last research question, see (310). (310) Is the non-anaphoric use of referential x-self in subject- and objectposition documented in the data of the children and if so, at which age? The data of the six English children will be analyzed with regard to the question whether the expression x-self is documented in subject position and if non-anaphoric x-self is used in object position. Non-target productions of referential but non-anaphoric x-self are not frequently attested in the production data of the children. A quantitative analysis of the few examples that are documented is given in Table 53. Table 53. Non-anaphoric x-self in object and subject position Shem Sarah Nina Ross Adam Abe Total

object/subject position object/subject position object/subject position object/subject position object/subject position object/subject position object/subject position

2;3–3;2 1/1 1/0 1/0 2/0 2/0 7/1

3;3–4;2 1/0

4;3–5;2

0/0 1/0 0/2 2/2

0/1 0/2 2/0 2/3

Total 3 1 1 3 3 6 11/6

250

Intensifiers in German and English production data

The majority of instances with non-anaphoric x-self in object position are produced in the children’s third year of life. Examples for nonanaphoric x-self in subject position are less frequently attested, the majority of examples are documented in the children’s fourth and fifth year of life. In this period, instances of non-anaphoric x-self in object position becomes less numerous. In chapter 2, a study by McDaniel et al. (1990) was discussed in which it is argued that around the age of four, children tested in comprehension studies accept x-self in subject position as they are in the process of acquiring the adnominal intensifier and accept it both with and without preceding head. In their study, McDaniel et al. (1990) tested children’s knowledge of the binding principles A, B and C. It is illustrated in Table 53 that the majority of utterances with non-anaphoric x-self in object position is produced around the age of three and, therefore, about one year earlier than the majority of utterances with x-self in subject position is produced. In comparison to the results reported by McDaniel et al., the ages at which the two non-target structures are produced correspond to their grammar types A and C. Both grammar type A and grammar type C children accept x-self in subject position. Grammar type A children accept non-anaphoric x-self also in object position, while grammar type C children conform to adult standards by rejecting it. The study of McDaniel et al. on the one hand shows that children’s interpretation of self-expressions in comprehension studies correlates with the findings in production data. On the other hand, McDaniel et al. argue for an intermediate stage B between grammar type A and C. Contrary to grammar type A and C, grammar type B is characterized by the rejection of non-anaphoric x-self both in subject and object position. A more continuous interpretation of the children’s behavior would be to assume that the children’s initial acceptance of x-self in subject position is gradually given up in the course of development. The behavior of grammar type A children develops towards the behavior of grammar type C children, then towards grammar type B, and finally, grammar type D. Figure 10 is adapted from McDaniel et al. and shows the ages and grammar types children conformed to in the second part of their study.80 Most children belonged to grammar type B; these were also the children who covered the widest age range. Only the youngest children were grammar type A children and, with one exception, none of the children older than five years of age conformed to grammar type C. Children older than five either behaved according to grammar type B or according to grammar type D. Even without further theoretical motivation, it seems difficult to find an explanation for the fact that grammar type B

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

251

persists until the children are relatively old and, with only one exception, grammar type C is not represented after an age of 4;8.

84 72 60 48 36 24 Type A mean (A)

Type C mean (C)

Type B mean (B)

Type D mean (D)

Figure 10. Grammar types in McDaniel et al.’s study (1990) Assuming that children’s behavior conforming to grammar type A is followed by grammar type C and then grammar type B before behaving adultlike, children give up the non-target interpretation of structures with xself in the following sequence. Grammar type A children allow free reference for the reflexive in (311), himself cannot only refer to Grover or Bert, but also to sentence-external referents such as Cookie Monster. At this age, children also accept x-self in subject position (312) and nonanaphoric occurrences of x-self (313). In the present study, children in the same age range were found to produce utterances with non-anaphoric x-self in object position. (311) Grover wants Bert to pat himself. (312) Himself is patting Grover. (313) I am washing himself.

252

Intensifiers in German and English production data

Grammar type C children are similar to grammar type A children in that they too accept x-self in subject position. Contrary to grammar type A children, these children do not allow sentence-external referents for himself in (311) and judge (313) to be ungrammatical. The age range of grammar type C children in the comprehension study corresponds to the age of the children in the present study at which the majority of examples with x-self in subject position are produced, and non-anaphoric x-self in object position is documented only in very isolated instances. In McDaniel et al.’s study, most of the grammar type B children are older than 5;0, an age at which no recordings of the children in the present study are available. Grammar type B children do not accept x-self in subject position, judge (313) to be ungrammatical and do not allow sentence-external referents for himself in (311). Taken together, the findings in production data and the results from experimental comprehension studies suggest that children start with a system that allows free reference for x-self. The referent for himself in (311) can be freely chosen from the discourse, syntactic information at this point of development seems largely irrelevant. This is also documented in the children’s acceptance of (312) and (313) as grammatical. Assuming the alternative sequencing of the children’s grammar types, the first major change in the children’s system is that they show some awareness of the syntactic properties of locally bound x-self. Sentence-external referents, that is, referents to be found in the wider discourse are abandoned. Regarding the grammaticality judgements of (312) and (313), the first structure to be given up is (313). Assuming that grammar type B describes children’s behavior at a later stage than grammar type C, children reject xself in subject position somewhat later than the use of x-self as in (313). The sequencing of children’s treatment of x-self both in production and comprehension suggests that children’s initial systems of self-expressions are mainly determined by discourse knowledge. It was shown earlier that under an age of four, the use of intensive (by) x-self dominates most children’s systems. Together with results from the experimental comprehension studies, in which it is shown that under an age of four children misinterpret reflexive pronouns systematically (Chien and Wexler 1990), it seems that for the interpretation of x-self in early phases of language development, children mainly rely on the expression’s properties in terms of their discourse function. Around the age of 3;0 children use and accept non-anaphoric x-self in object position. This finding is in line with the claim that before an age of four, children are not primarily concerned with the function of x-self as a reflexive pronoun.

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

253

It is an interesting fact to note that all examples of non-anaphoric x-self in the production data are very similar in that all predicates relate to an activity that involves the body in a very concrete manner. When the children use non-anaphoric x-self in object position, the expression is treated as if consisting of a genitive determiner and nominal self (see above). The children, for instance, talk about hurting (314), cutting (315), or dressing (316) one self. (314) a. b. c. (315) (316)

…it will hurt yourself so it won’t hurt yourself oh, you hurted myself don’t cut myself you dress myself

(Shem, 3;0,13) (Shem, 3;1,5) (Abe, 2;10,3) (Ross, 3;0,1) (Sarah, 2;9,20)

It is only after an age of 4;0 when reflexive pronouns are also represented in a greater number of instances that non-anaphoric x-self in object position is given up, which suggests that the children come to realize that x-self in object position functions as a reflexive pronoun with specific syntactic requirements. It is interesting to note that despite these findings, the acceptance and production of x-self in subject position persists for a relatively long time. Shem produces one example of x-self in subject position an at age of 3;0,20, see (317). (315) adult: okay # now drive to the new house. adult: are you gonna have movingmen to help them unload the furniture? child: yeah. adult: yeah? child: but first… …deirself moved duh furniture in dough. child: they moved it in themselves? child: yeah. (Shem, 3;0,20) He is talking to an adult about the fact that they will be moving and that they will have moving men helping them. It is not quite clear what deirself refers to. It is possible that it could refer to the moving men, but it is also possible that deirself has the same referent as them a few utterances earlier. If them is relating to Shem’s parents, it is possible to interpret deirself as an adnominal intensifier without preceding head. In this case, Shem’s utterance can be interpreted as an attempt of identifying his parents in

254

Intensifiers in German and English production data

relation to the moving men. Adam produces two instances in which he uses x-self in subject position, see (318) and (319). (318) child: here Paul which one? mother: Paul would like red. child: black. child: which one I would like huh? child: which one myself would like huh? (Adam, 4;3,0) (319) child: now myself has to park. child: now I wan(t) (t)a see where I can put some more. child: now myself has to park. (Adam, 4;3,0) In (318) Adam is talking about distributing some colored objects. He first gives one to his little brother Paul and then chooses one for himself. In (319) Adam and his mother are playing with toy cars and Adam decides that he has to park. The interesting aspect of the utterance in (318) is that before Adam produces a non-target utterance, he produces an almost identical but target-like structure. If it can be assumed that Adam somewhat consciously rephrases his first attempt, it seems that he might be trying to encode a particular concept by using myself instead of I. In (319) no rephrasing can be observed, but in the directly following utterance, Adam uses the target pronoun I in subject position. It is difficult to speculate which kind of concept is encoded by Adam’s use of myself, but it could be the case that he is shifting perspective on the event. In both (318) and in (319) Adam is producing a short narrative and keeps commenting on his own actions. It is possible that he tries to encode his role as narrator commenting on his own actions and his role as active agent differently. The two instances produced by Abe appear in the same sequence, see (320). (320) mother: what would Daddy be? child: he would be so big that he would pound himself into the ground. father: why? child: because yourself would do it. father: why would myself do it? child: yourself would hate you. (Abe, 3;10,25) Abe is telling a story involving his father. It seems an important point to note that the story only involves Abe’s father and that Abe behaves as a narrator but has no part in the story itself. Similar to Adam in the previous

Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns

255

examples, it could be the case that Abe is encoding his perspective on the event with the use of x-self. Different to Adam, Abe is not referring to himself from a narrator perspective but to his father who is central in the story. As his father is also present when Abe is telling his story, it is possible that Abe is differentiating between his father as the protagonist of his story and his father as a participant of the actual discourse. While in English logophoric pronouns are not used in subject position as a means to track the perspective in narratives, it was illustrated above that there is a clear connection between non-locally bound x-self and the discourse perspective on participants. To summarize, the production data analyzed in the present study indicates that in early phases of language development, English children when acquiring the expression x-self heavily rely on the expression’s discourse functions. It could be shown that children’s initial use of (intensive) x-self often involves the notion of contrast in situations where the negotiation of a joint action is an issue. Over the course of development, children’s use of x-self becomes more accurate in that the specific semantic and syntactic requirements that are made by (by) x-self in the function of an intensifier versus x-self in the function of a reflexive pronoun are met step by step. While the syntactic requirements of locally bound reflexives are acquired relatively early as, for instance, documented by the abundance of non-anaphoric x-self in object position, the particulars of discourse perspective when using intensive x-self are not fully sorted out at the end of the children’s fifth year of life, when isolated instances of xself in subject position can still be found. 7. Implications for future research In this volume, the use of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions by children acquiring either German or English as their first language has been examined. The basis for this analysis was a detailed description of the form-function pairings in the two adult systems as given in chapter 1. The study was aimed at giving an account of when and in which contexts intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions appear in the data of the children. An analysis of how forms and functions correspond throughout the course of the recording of each individual child was given to compare similarities and differences among the children acquiring the same language, but also to compare the similarities and differences among the two groups of children. Based on the fact that in

256 Intensifiers in German and English production data

English, intensifiers and reflexive pronouns are formally identical, an analysis of the emergence of x-self as an intensifier in relation to the emergence x-self as a reflexive pronoun was given. The analyses are based on longitudinal production data of six German-speaking and six Englishspeaking children. For the German children, the relevant period covered by the available data was between the ages of 2;0 and 4;0 and for the English children, the relevant period covered by the data was between the ages of 2;0 and 5;0. In the third chapter, four issues were examined in particular: First, the use type of intensifiers that children integrate into their early utterances was analyzed. Second, the relation between the use of the German expressions selbst/selber and allein and the English expressions x-self and by x-self in terms of what kind of event structure the respective utterances relate to was examined. Third, an account of the development of the four individual expressions in the course of the recording was given and fourth, the interrelation of the use of x-self as a reflexive pronoun and as an intensifier was examined. With the exception of the German child Kerstin, all children, when using intensifiers, produced the adverbial exclusive use type. Although no clear examples of an adnominal intensifier are documented in the data, a few instances with selbst/selber or x-self were somewhat ambiguous between an adverbial exclusive and an adnominal reading. If the expressions are interpreted as an example of an adnominal intensifier, all instances represent the kind in which ‘X is more important than Y in a specific situation’. In contrast to other possible manifestations of adnominal intensifiers such as ‘X has a higher rank than Y in a realworld hierarchy’, the identification of a referent who is central in a specific situation seems a relevant function for a young child. As the analysis of the children’s use of agent-sensitive expressions revealed, in most instances the issue of how the referents of the children’s discourse including the children themselves are related to one another in an ongoing activity is central. Given the fact that intensifiers are rare in spontaneous speech, the number of instances that surface in the data of the children is also relatively low. Although the data served the purpose of giving insight into how children first use intensifiers and agent-sensitive expressions, it would be desirable for future analyses to work with data that is controlled for the functions that are relevant in the early use of intensifiers and related agent-sensitive expressions. An analysis of how the children’s systems of agent-sensitive expressions are organized and how forms and functions correspond throughout the course of the recording of each child was provided. With the

Implications for future reseach 257

exception of the English child Sarah, all children in the study showed a preference for the expressions allein and by x-self. It was shown that expressions that have a non-comitative meaning like German allein, or English by x-self are also used similar to the adverbial exclusive intensifier. In some languages, the expression that can also have a non-comitative meaning is the intensifier, like Yiddish aleyn. In Slovak, sám/sama/samo is used as an intensifier, although an expression that only functions as an intensifier also exists: samotný/samotná/samotné. It was argued that given the non-comitative meaning of German allein and English by x-self the expression may be semantically more accessible for the children when used adverbial exclusively. These expressions relate to the notion of (non-) jointness, which seems to be a central aspect of the children’s utterances when negotiating and asserting their developing non-linguistic skills. A question that directly follows from the claim that adverbial exclusive allein or by x-self is semantically more accessible for children in early stages of language development is what happens in languages in which the expression with a non-comitative meaning cannot also be used similar to the adverbial exclusive intensifier. For instance, how do children acquiring Estonian as their first language use intensifiers in early stages of language development? Estonian has an expression with the meaning of ‘alone’ or ‘without company’, üksi, that cannot be used similar to the Estonian adverbial exclusive intensifier ise, see (321). (321) Ma tegin koogi üksinda. I make.PAST.1SG cake.TERM alone.1SG.INTR ‘I made the cake alone.’ The sentence given above means that no one else was present when the subject referent made the cake. The sentence does not have the implication of ‘without help’ as the English sentence with by myself would have. The sentence given in (322) involves the Estonian adverbial exclusive intensifier ise that can be translated into the English adverbial exclusive intensifier myself. (322) Ma tegin ise koogi. I make.PAST.1SG SELF cake.TERM ‘I made the cake myself.’ Vihman (1999) in her study of a bilingual child acquiring both English and Estonian as his first language, has noted that among the first 25

258 Intensifiers in German and English production data

patterns found in the “constructed utterance” category, the construction [ise X] appears. The form ise represents the Estonian intensifier and the slot X can be filled by various unmarked verb stems. The first use of the intensifier ise by Vihman’s son Raivo is produced at an age of 1;9,25 in an utterance that mixes both English and Estonian, see (323). (323) No, ise tee. no SELF do In Estonian acquisition data provided by CHILDES (Vija corpus), the first instance of the intensifiers ise is documented when the child Antsu has reached an age of 1;10,22.81 Until the end of his second year of life, Antsu produces another 22 instances of the Estonian intensifier. It is impossible to give an in-depth analysis here, but with regard to the fact that the Estonian expression üksi cannot be used adverbial exclusively, it seems an interesting fact to note that in the data of two children acquiring Estonian, the use of the intensifier ise is documented at very early stages of language development. For comparison, the first instances of selbst/selber are not documented in the data of the German children until towards the end of their third year of life. It would be worth to analyze the children’s use of the Estonian intensifier ise in more detail and to compare it to a functional analysis of the children’s use of the expression üksi. Another interesting fact to note is that the first occurrence of the Estonian intensifier ise in the data that Vihman (1999) analyzed, is interpreted by her as a non-target use in which the intensifier appears in subject position. As Vihman observes, this is at a time at which Raivo does not yet use either pronouns or pronominal inflections. Vihman claims that in absence of pronouns and pronominal inflections Raivo uses ise to express first person. The initial use of the form ise is seen as an early form for person reference and a substitute for the personal pronoun I or children’s use of their own name. Given Vihman’s interpretation, the pattern [ise X] constitutes a parallel to the English examples in child language in which a self-expression is used in subject position. This parallel is especially interesting since Estonian belongs to the same language type as English with regard to the formal identity of the expressions serving as a reflexive pronoun and as an intensifier. The Estonian intensifier ise is formally identical with the Estonian reflexive pronoun and is not marked for person but for case and number. Contrary to English, the inner structure of ise does not invite an analysis by the children that results in the use of a self-expression as a non-anaphoric noun phrase. On the other hand and

Implications for future reseach 259

similar to English children, Estonian children hear the same expression being used referentially as a reflexive pronoun and non-referentially as an intensifier. The question that needs to be answered for children acquiring Estonian is if the same mechanisms can be made responsible for a use of the intensifier ise as a referring expression in subject position. Assuming that there is nothing in the morphology that could motivate the use of ise as documented in Vihman’s data, a closer look at the syntactical constructions in which the Estonian intensifier appears might offer some answers. The last issue to be raised here is the difference between the German and the English children that was observed with regard to the kind of speech act that the children encode when producing utterances with agentsensitive expressions. While German children often use their utterances to reject an adult’s attempt at interfering with their activity, the English children hardly ever make use of this function. It was mentioned that with the kind of data used it is not possible to rule out that the high number of rejections is an effect of the interactional style of the participants in the study. An alternative that was considered with regard to the origin of the differences are the structural differences of the German and the English language system. With regard to how children talk about agentivity and control, Budwig (1989, 1995) shows that English children systematically employ different self-reference forms in subject position to mark distinct perspectives on agency. Before they regularly refer to others, the English children’s use of my in subject position links up with the notions of agentivity and control, see (324). (324) child: my blew the candles out.82 When me appears in subject position the children often refer to themselves as affected by the action, see (325). Nominative I is often used in assertions, see (326). (325) child: me jump.83 (326) child: I wear it.84 While German provides the children with similar forms for selfreference, the possessive pronoun mein/meine although linked up with control in the German children’s utterances (cf. Deutsch and Budwig 1983), does not appear in subject position (cf. Otto 1994). It seems an interesting point to mention that of the children analyzed in this study, the English child Nina frequently uses my in subject position. Until she reaches

260 Intensifiers in German and English production data

an age of about 2;6, there are numerous examples of this kind in her data. In the present study, no functional analysis of the English children’s use of self-reference forms in subject position could be carried out, but a preliminary overview of the data revealed that Nina gives up my in subject position when the expression by x-self is introduced to the system. In future research, it would be worth considering if the different non-nominative and nominative structures in the data of the English children that interact with the notion of agentivity can be shown to correlate systematically.

Notes

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12. 13. 14.

Example adapted from Brown-corpus (Brown 1973); Adam 4;3,0. Unless stated differently, statements made about English expressions also hold for the respective German expressions and vice versa. Siemund (1999) has shown that Baker’s (1995) claim that intensifiers are markers of discourse prominence is too general to capture all occurrences. Jane Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, p. 178, Bloomsbury 1997. Cf. König 2001; Siemund 2000; Hole 2001b. Siemund (2000) and Hole (2001b) also list an anti-comitative context. As this context involves constructions with German allein and English by x-self, which will be discussed separately later in this chapter, this context is not further illustrated here. See Siemund (2000) who puts forward the claim that usually some sort of relationship between the AGENT in the sentence with an adverbial exclusive intensifier and the helping or delegated AGENT can be identified. See Kemmer (1993) for an in-depth analysis of such cases, for Spanish, see König (2001). Siemund (2000) lists a number of different constructions in which an x-self expression can be used in violation of the binding conditions (cf. Chomsky 1981, 1986). Example taken from König (2001). König (2001) and Siemund (2000) provide a discussion why in structures like those illustrated here, a clear distinction is, in many cases, difficult if not impossible between reflexive anaphors, which are mainly subject to specific syntactic conditions, and logophors, which are used to refer to an entity in the discourse the perspective of which is taken (cf. Hagège 1974). The examples given are adapted from Kornfilt (1997) and König (2001). Cf. Hopper and Thomson (1980). Hole (2001) offers a more formal anlysis that takes a somewhat different perspective on the intensifier’s function of discourse structuring. His account is based on the observation that in the contextual alternatives, the involvement of Jan is that of a non-AGENT. If Jan received help from his brother in digging up the garden, or had his brother dig up the garden for him, Jan becomes an EXPERIENCER, BENEFACTOR or RECIPIENT. According to Hole, the use of selbst denies that this is the case: Jan incorporates the thematic role of AGENT considering the completion of the action and selbst at the same time asserts this role and excludes the possibility that Jan’s involvement in digging up the garden is that of an EXPERIENCER or the

262 Notes

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

like. In contrast to König’s and Siemund’s account, the contrast with alternative agents is an implication of the action being performed and not the main characteristic of the adverbial exclusive intensifier itself. In Hole’s account the expressions assert that the semantic role of Jan is that of an AGENT, and the expressions relate not directly to alternative agents but to relations other than that of an AGENT that hold between the subject referent and its predicate. For simplicities sake, only von selbst is used in the examples. The difference in meaning of von selbst and von allein will not be an issue in this volume. See Budwig (1995) for a review of approaches in linguistic theory and developmental approaches to the concept of agentivity. For a controversial discussion of this division see Ryle (1984). Adapted from Dowty (1991: 572). With appropiate stress, the sentence becomes acceptable: Das Buch ist vom Regal geFALLen, niemand hat es heruntergeWORfen. Mannheimer Morgen, 14.03.2000. British National Corpus, C8V 742. In many cases, the adverbial inclusive use of intensifiers is difficult to interpret without further context. In the following sections, each of the examples given in Table 4 and Table 5 will be discussed individually, if necesarry, embedded in a suitable context. Mannheimer Morgen, 24.05.2000 Adapted from quote, British National Corpus, GVT 759. Adapted from quote, British National Corpus, GVL 203. British National Corpus, EDN 87. British National Corpus, BMS 1830. Adapted from Hopper and Thompson (1980). Note that in Yiddish, the expression gufe can also appear when aleyn is used. Mannheimer Morgen, 29.07.2000. It should be noted here that McDaniel et al. (1990) use the term emphatic reflexive instead of the term intensifier. It can be concluded from their discussion that the term covers only those expressions which are categorized as adnominal intensifiers in the present study. Adapted from McDaniel et al.'s (1990) study. Examples taken from Chien and Wexler (1990). The examples discussed here are all mismatch conditions. Chien and Wexler also tested match conditions which had less dramatic results, see Chien and Wexler (1990) for details. The percentages are adapted from Chien and Wexler (1990: 269, 273), who show the percentages of the correct answers of the children. Examples taken from Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993: 72). Examples adapted from Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993). Examples adapted from Hestvik and Philip (2000: 183). Adapted from Hestvik and Philip (2000: 185)

Notes 263

40. In the same sentence if not in subjunctive mood sig can only be interpreted to refer locally to Pippi Longstocking. 41. Adapted from Manzini and Wexler (1987: 53). 42. For details, see Reinhart and Reuland (1993). 43. Examples are taken from König and Siemund, (1999). 44. David Lodge, Changing Places, p.62. Penguin 1975. 45. Example taken from König and Siemund (1999). 46. Michael Crichton, Airframe, p.278. Arrow Books 1996. 47. Example taken from Siemund, (2000). 48. Aelfrics Grammatik 96.11; Zupitza 1966. 49. Example taken from König and Siemund, (1996). 50. Aelfrics letter to Sigeweard 1128, Crawford 1922. 51. König and Siemund (1999) argue that locally free x-self can also be found in contexts in which an unusal activity is associated with the referent of the nominal co-constituent, e.g. voices are usually heard outside oneself: (i) While looking at the lake, Johni distinctly heard a voice whispering within himselfi: ‘life is wonderful.’ These instances are similar to the German example given below in which the intensifier occurs behind the reflexive marking, hate turned towards oneself is considered to be unusual: (ii) Nach dieser Nacht begann er, sich selbst zu hassen. 52. Cf. Baker (1995: 66). 53. Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility, p.282. London, Penguin Claasics 1986. 54. Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, p.126. London, Penguin Classics 1985. 55. Examples taken from König and Siemund, (1999). 56. It was already mentioned that it is a valid question to ask if the relationship between logophoricity and locally free reflexives is of the sort that all instances of the latter also have a logophoric function. A detailed discussion of this topic can be found in König and Siemund (1999). 57. Table 11 is adapted from Avrutin and Cunningham (1997). 58. The fifth property is the use of self-forms in possessive structures. Although there are languages that use the same expression as an intensifier and in possessive structures (e.g. Turkish kendi), English does not: these are my own/*myself’s children. 59. All examples are taken from Keenan (2001). 60. BlHom III.29, c971. 61. CP, c880. 62. CP LV, 427, c880. 63. Example taken from Keenan (2001). 64. King Horn, c1225. 65. Instances of long-distance binding and inherently contrastive expressions will not be clearly differentiated here. The important point to note is that in this kind of use of the expression x-self, the element of contrastiveness is in most

264 Notes

66.

67. 68. 69.

70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

81. 82. 83. 84.

cases clearly present. For a discussion of typical contexts for the referential use of x-self in instances of non-local binding, see König and Siemund (1999). In Table 12 the age ranges of children tested in comprehension studies are given for their performance with regard to the morphological and discourse properties of x-self. The boxes referring to the children’s obeyance of the locality requirement are oriented towards the mean age of the children in a group. If the value is ‘0’ recordings were available, but no intensifiers are documented in the data. If the value is ‘-’ recordings were not available at this age. In the data of Caroline, two instances of von allein are documented. These two instances are missing from Table 21 and will be discussed in section 4.2. of this chapter. For the distinction between anti-delegative and autonomous contexts see chapter 1. In three instances, Simone used von allein, these utterances will be discussed in section 4.4. of this chapter. Ross produced one example of by itself, this will be discussed in section 4.9. of this chapter. In the data of Shem two instances of by itself are documented. They will be discussed in section 4.11. of this chapter. Adam produced the largest number of instances with by itself and by themselves. They will be discussed in more detail in section 4.12. of this chapter. Two instances of von allein are included in the total number of utterances. The information that the object noun phrase ne refers to a soap bubble can be inferred from the context. Note that himself in this sentence is non-reflexive. Not all corpora provided data for the whole period. The percentages are adapted from Chien and Wexler (1990: 269, 273), who show the percentages of the correct answers of the children. Two children displayed a behavior intermediate between two grammar types, one child (3;8) belonged both to grammar type A and grammar type C, an older child (6;7) belonged both to grammar type B and grammar type C. For these children, two marks are plotted in Figure 10. The data of her son Andreas are provided by Maigi Vija, cf. Vija and Vihman (2001). Budwig (1989: 281). Budwig (1989: 279). Budwig (1989: 276).

References Avrutin, Sergey, and Jennifer Cunningham 1997 Children and Reflexivity. Proceedings of the 21st BU Conference on Language Development. Baker, Carl L. 1995 Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71: 63-101. Behrens, Heike 1992 Temporal relations and word order: Form and Function in the acquisition of verbs by German children. In Fourth NETSymposium 1992, Peter Jordens, and Astrid Wijnands (eds.), 15-19. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Applied Linguisitcs. Behrens, Heike 1993 Early encoding of temporal reference in German. In The proceedings of the 24th Annual Child Language Reserach Forum 1992, Eve V. (ed.), 61-72. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Behrens, Heike, Christian Bittner, and Werner Deutsch 1988 William Stern: Ein Wegbereiter der Historischen Psychologie? In Wegbereiter der Historischen Psychologie, Gerd Jüttemann (ed.), 245-255. München/Wien/Baltimore: Psychologie Verlags Union. Behrens, Heike, and Werner Deutsch 1991 Die Tagebücher von Clara und William Stern. In Theorien und Methoden psychologie-geschichtlicher Forschung, Helmut E. Lück, and Rudolf Miller (eds.), 66-76. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Bloom, Lois, Lois Hood, and Patsy Lightbown 1974 Imitation in language development: If, when and why. Cognitive Psychology 6: 380-420. Bloom, Lois, Patsy Lightbown, and Lois Hood 1975 Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 40. (Serial No. 160). Bloom, Lois, Karin Lifter, and Jeremie Hafitz 1980 Semantics of verbs and the development of verb inflection in child language. Language 56: 386-412.

266

References

Brown, Roger 1973 Budwig, Nancy 1989 Budwig, Nancy 1990 Budwig, Nancy 1995

A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. The linguistic marking of agentivity and control in child language. Journal of Child Language 16: 263-284. The linguistic marking of non-prototypical agency: An exploration into children's use of passives. Linguistics 28: 1221-1252.

A developmental-functionalist approach to child language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chien, Yu-Chin, and Kenneth Wexler 1990 Children’s Knowledge of Locality Conditions in Binding as Evidence for the Modularity of Syntax and Pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1(3): 225-295. Chomsky, Noam 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam 1986 Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Clahsen, Harald 1982 Spracherwerb in der Kindheit: Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Syntax bei Kleinkindern. Tübingen: Narr. Clahsen, Harald 1992 Learnability theory and the problem of development in language acquisition. In Theoretical issues in language acquisition, Jürgen Weissenborn, Helen Goodluck, and Thomas Roeper (eds.), 53-76. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Clahsen, Harald, and Martina Penke 1992 The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the SIMONE-Corpus. In The acqusition of verb placement, Jürgen Meisel (ed.), 181-223. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Clark, Eve V. 1978a Awareness of language: Some evidence from what children say and do. In The child’s conception of language, Anne Sinclair, Robert Jarvella, and Willem Levelt (eds.), 17-43. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Clark, Eve V. 1978b Discovering what words can do. In Papers from the parasession on the lexicon. Donka Farkas, Weseley Jacobson,

References 267 and Karol Todrys (eds.), 34-57. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Clark, Eve V. 1979

Clark, Eve V. 1982a

Clark, Eve V. 1982b

Clark, Eve V. 1993

Building a vocabulary: Words for objects, actions and relations. In Language acquisition: Studies in first language development, Paul Fletcher, and Michael Garman (eds.), 149160. New York: Cambridge University Press. Language change during language acquisition. In Advances in child development, Michael E. Lamb, and Ann L. Brown (eds.), 173-197. (Volume 2.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The young word maker: A case study of innovation in the child’s lexicon. In Language acquisition: The state of the art, Eric Wanner, and Lila R. Gleitman (eds.), 390-425. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Lexicon in Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crain, Stephen, and Cecile McKee 1985 Acquisition of Structural Restrictions on anaphora. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 16, Stephen Berman, Jae-Wong Choe, and Joyce McDonough, (eds.), 94-110. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Crawford, Samuel J. (ed.) 1922 The Old English Version of the Heptateuch. Aelfric’s Treatise on the old and New Testament and his Preface to Genesis. London: Early English Text Society. Deutsch, Werner 1982 Children’s interpretation of sentence-internal anaphora. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 21: 3945. Deutsch, Werner, Charlotte Koster, and Jan Koster 1986 What can we learn from children’s errors in understanding anaphora? Linguistics 24: 203-225. Dowty, David 1991 Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67 (3): 547-619. Edmondson, Jerold A., and Frans Plank 1978 Great expectations: An intensive self analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 373-413.

268

References

Farr, James M. 1905

Intensives and Reflexives in Anglo-Saxon and early MiddleEnglisch. Ph.D. diss., University of Baltimore. Fox, Danny, and Yosef Grodzinsky 1998 Children’s Passive: A View from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry 29 (2): 311-332. Gast, Volker to appear The grammar of identity: intensifiers and reflexives in Germanic languages. London: Routledge. Grimshaw, Jan, and Sarah Rosen 1990 Knowledge and Obedience: the Developmental Status of the Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 187-222. Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Tanya Reinhart 1993 The Innateness of Binding and Coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (1): 69-101. Gülzow, Insa 1999 Intensifiers in Slovak. Unpublished manuscript. Freie Universität Berlin. Gülzow, Insa 2000 The acquisition of intensifiers versus reflexive pronouns. ZAS Working Papers. Volume 15. Berlin: Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Hagège, Claude 1974 Les pronoms logophorique. Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 69: 287-310. Hestvik, Arild, and William Philip 2001 Experimental evidence for the difference between syntactic and logophoric reflexive binding. In Long Distance Reflexives: Syntax and Semantics, James Huang, Peter Cole, and Gabriella Hermon (eds.), San Diego: Academic Press. Hestvik, Arild, and William Philip 2000 Binding and Coreference in Norwegian Child Language. Language Acquisition 8 (3): 171-235. Hirakawa Makiko 1990 A Study of the L2 acquisition of English reflexives. Second Language Research 6 (1): 60-85. Hole, Daniel 2001 Agentive selbst in German. In Proceedings of the sixth meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, Graham Katz, Sabine Reinhard, and Philip Reuter (eds.), University of Osnabrück.

References 269 Hopper, Paul, and Sandra Thompson 1980 Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251299. Hurford, James R. 1992 An approach to the phylogeny of the language faculty. In The Evolution of Human Languages, John A. Hawkins, and Murray Gell-Mann (eds.), 273-303. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Hyams, Nina, and Sigridur Sigurjónsdóttir 1990 The development of „long-distance anaphora”: A crosslinguistic comparison with special reference to Icelandic. Language Acquisition 1: 57-93. Jackendoff, Ray 1993 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press. Katz, Jerrold. J. 1966 The philosophy of language. New York: Harper and Row. Keenan, Edward L. 2001 Creating Anaphors. The History of Reflexive Pronouns in English. Cambridge: MIT Press. Keenan, Edward L. 2003 A historical explanation of some binding theoretic fact in English. In The nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, John Moore, and Maria Polinsky (eds.), 152-189. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Kemmer, Suzanne 1993 The middle voice: A typological and diachronic study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kemmer, Suzanne 1995 Emphatic and reflexive -self. Expectations, viewpoint and subjectivity. In Subjectivity and subjectivization in language, Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds.), 55-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. König, Ekkehard 1991 The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective, London:Routledge. König, Ekkehard 2001 Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), 747760. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

270

References

König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund 1996a Emphatische Reflexiva und Fokusstruktur. In Sprache und Pragmatik, Inger Rosengren (ed.), 1-42. (Volume 40.) Lund: Lunds Universitet. König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund 1996b ‚Selbst-Reflexionen’. In Wenn die Semantik arbeitet, Festschrift für Klaus Baumgärtner, Gisela Harras (ed.), 277302. Tübingen: Niemeyer. König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund 1999c Reflexivity, Logophoricity and Intensification in English. In Form, Function and Variation in English. Studies in Honour of Klaus Hansen, Uwe Carls, and Peter Lucko (eds.), 283304. Frankfurt: Lang. König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund 2005 Intensifiers and reflexives. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds.), 194-197. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kornfilt, Jaklin 1997 Turkish. London and New York: Routledge. Lee, D. and Jaqueline Schachter 1997 Sensitive period effects in Binding Theory. Language Acquisition 6(4): 333-362. MacWhinney, Brian 1991 The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. MacWhinney, Brian, and Catherine Snow 1990 The Child Language Data Exchange System: An update. Journal of Child Language 17: 457-472. Manzini, Rita, and Kenneth Wexler 1987 Parameters, Binding Theory and Learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18 (3): 413-444. Maranz, Alec 1984 On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Matsumura, Masanori 1994 Japanese learners’ acquisition of the locality requirement of English reflexives: Evidence for retreat from overgeneralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16(1): 19-42.

References 271 Matsuoka, Kazumi 1997 Binding Conditions in Young Children’s Grammar: Interpretations of Pronouns Inside Conjoined NPs. Language Acquisition 6(1): 37-48. McDaniel, Dana, Helen Smith Cairns, and Jennifer Hsu 1990 Binding Principles in the Grammars of Young Children. Language Acquisition 1(1): 121-139. Miller, Max 1976 Zur Logik der frühkindlichen Sprachentwicklung: Empirische Untersuchungen und Theoriediskussion. Stuttgart: Klett. Miller, George, and Philip Johnson-Laird 1976 Language and Perception. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mills, Anne 1985 The acquisition of German. In The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Volume 1: The data, Dan I. Slobin (ed.), 141-254. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Moseley, Christopher 1994 Colloquial Estonian. London: Routledge. Otto, Insa 1995 Linguistischer Egozentrismus bei deutschen und englischen Kindern. Staatsarbeit, Universität Kiel, Germany. Philip, William, and Peter Coopmans 1996 The Role of Referentiality in the Acquisition of Pronominal Anaphora. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 26, Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), 241-255. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Reinhart, Tanya 1983a Coreference and Bound Anaphora: A Restatement of the Anaphora Question. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 47-88. Reinhart, Tanya 1983b Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm. Reinhart, Tanya 1986 Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In: Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, Volume 1. Barbara Lust (ed.), 123-150. Dordrecht: Reidel. Reinhard, Tanya, and Eric Reuland 1993 ‘Reflexivity’. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 657-720. Ryle, Gilbert The Concept of Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago 1949 Press.

272

References

Short, David 1993 Siemund, Peter 2000 Siewierska, Anna 1984

Slovak. In The Slovonic Languages, Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett (eds.), 533-592. New York: Routledge. Intensifiers: A Comparison of English and German. London: Routledge.

The Passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm. Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigidur, and Peter Coopmans 1996 The Acquisition of Anaphoric Relations in Dutch. Amsterdam Series on Child Language Development 5. Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigidur, Nina Hyams, and Yu-Chin Chien 1988 The acquisition of reflexive and pronouns by Icelandic children. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 27: 97-106. Slobin, Dan I. 1981 The origins of grammatical encodings of events. In The child’s construction of language, Werner Deutsch (ed.), 185199. London: Academic Press. Slobin, Dan I. 1982 Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Language acquisition: The state of the art, Eric Wanner and Lila R. Gleitmann (eds.), 128-172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Slobin, Dan I. 1985 Crosslinguistic evidence for the Language- Making Capacity. In The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Volume 1, Dan I. Slobin (ed.), 1157-1256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stern, Clara, and William L. Stern 1907 Die Kindersprache. Leipzig: Barth Stern, Clara, and William L. Stern 1928 Reprint. Die Kindersprache. 4th ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Original edition, Leipzig: Barth. Stern, William L. 1952 Psychologie der frühen Kindheit bis zum sechsten Lebensjahr. 7th ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Original edition, Leipzig: Barth. Tauli, Valter 1983 Standard Estonian Grammar. (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 14). Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

References 273 Thomas, Margaret 1994

Young Children’s Hypotheses about English Reflexives. In: Handbook on Research in Language Development using CHILDES, Jeffrey L. Sokolov, and Catherine Snow (eds.), 254-285. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tomasello, Michael 1992 First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Turunen, Aimo 1987 The Balto-Finnic Languages,’ In: The Uralic Languages, Denis Sinor (ed.), 58-83. Leiden, New York: Brill. Vendler, Zeno 1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press Verrips, Maike, and Jürgen Weissenborn 1992 Routes to verb placement in early German and French: The independence of finiteness and agreement. In The acqusition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language development, Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.), 283-331. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Vihman, Marylin M. 1999 The transition to grammar in a bilingual child: Positional patterns, model learning, and relational words. The International Journal of Bilingualism 3 (2/3): 267-301. Viitso, Tiit-Rein 1998 Estonian. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), 116-148. The Uralic Languages. London: Routledge. Vihman, Marylin, and Maigi Vija 2006 Verbs in first word combinations in Estonian. In The Acquisition of Verbs and their Grammar, Natalia Gagarina, and Insa Gülzow (eds.), 311-342. (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 33). Berlin: Springer. Weist, Richard M., Hanna Wysocka, Katarzyna Witkowska-Stadnik, Ewa Buczowska, and Emilia Konieczna 1984 The defective tense hypothesis: On the emergence of tense and aspect in child Polish. Journal of Child Language 11: 347-374. Wexler, Kenneth, and Manzini, Rita 1987 Parameters and Learnability in Binding Theory. In Parameter Setting, Thomas Roeper, and E. Williams (eds.), 41-89. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

274

References

Wexler, Kenneth, and Chien, Yu-Chin 1985 The development of lexical anaphors and pronouns. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 24: 138-149. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984 Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Studia grammatica 21. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag Zribi-Hertz, Anne 1989 Anaphor binding and narrative point of view. English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65, 695-727. Zupitza, Julius (ed.) 1966 Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar, Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Index

achievement 13, 50, 141, 146, 168, 192, 200, 205, 208 actor 32 additive particle 14, 105 adjunct 17, 22, 35, 38 adnominal 1, 4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 25, 42, 54, 57, 58, 77, 88, 92, 101103, 112, 237, 249, 253, 256, 262 adverb 30, 33, 35, 38, 41, 47-49, 114, 115, 118, 119, 135, 142, 166 adverbial exclusive 1, 5-13, 15, 22, 24, 25, 33, 42-50, 52, 54, 87, 89, 92, 98, 101-103, 105, 106, 108, 111-122, 126, 128, 130, 132, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 152, 166, 170, 172, 174, 183, 185, 188, 193, 204, 207, 219, 226-231, 233, 234, 235, 242, 256-258, 261, 262 adverbial inclusive 1, 6, 8, 13-15, 25, 37, 42, 43, 45, 46, 88, 92, 99, 101-113, 115-117, 119, 120, 122, 170, 174-176, 181, 214, 223, 228, 231, 262 age effect 11, 115 agency 11, 22, 23, 27, 36, 45, 89, 92, 104, 106-108, 123, 127, 146, 147, 167, 170, 212, 219, 220, 228, 235, 240, 241, 259 agent 1, 2, 10-12, 14, 22, 23, 25-31, 33, 35-39, 42, 44-46, 51-53, 83, 89, 91, 92, 94, 97, 99, 106-108, 110-112, 116, 120-123, 125, 132, 137, 145, 151, 155, 166, 169, 170, 173, 175-177, 179-182, 187, 188, 197, 198, 200, 208, 210, 213, 215, 217-219, 221-232, 235242, 244, 245, 248, 254-256, 259

agentivity 2-5, 7, 10, 23-25, 27, 28, 30, 34-36, 52, 89, 111, 179, 200, 213, 229, 247, 259, 260, 262 ambiguity 42 ambiguous 6, 31, 32, 43, 45, 46, 66, 77, 81, 111, 113, 256 analytic mistakes 15 anaphor 20, 55, 56, 59, 66, 72, 75, 78, 261 anaphoric expression 55 animacy hierarchy 39 animate 8, 28, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 50, 51, 201, 202 antecedent 55, 60, 65, 67, 68, 70-73, 76, 77, 91 anti-causative 18, 19, 26, 27, 34, 36, 40, 41, 51-53, 121, 158, 159, 183, 187, 188, 195-197, 199-202, 206208, 211, 226, 228, 230, 238 anti-comitative 49, 261 anti-synonymy 82 argument position 17, 19, 21, 78 aspectual marker 18, 19 aspectuality 39 asymmetry 13, 14 atelic 40-43, 45, 51, 99, 105, 113, 115-122, 130, 131, 138, 142, 145, 146, 152, 173, 188, 226 auch 14, 15, 98, 99, 103-107, 178, 181 auxiliary 38 Bantu 16 binding 20, 54-59, 64-66, 71-76, 7880, 83, 84, 91, 249, 261, 264 binding theory 54, 55, 66, 71 bodily motion 18, 19 by-phrase 35, 36

276 Index causation 27, 31, 32, 199 causativity 23, 27, 31, 33 c-commanding 75 center 8, 20, 77, 78, 170 change of state 28, 112 Chinese 55 clefting 38 co-argument 76, 80 co-constituent 38, 77, 78, 263 coindexation 61, 66, 75 communicative goals 92 competence 5, 12, 13, 108, 111, 116, 122, 150, 166, 168, 180 complementary distribution 55, 75 compositional event structure 31 compositionality 28 constituency interpretation 82 context anti-delegative 10-12, 26, 48, 116, 264 anti-instrumental 10 autonomous 12, 13, 15, 36, 53, 116, 123, 151, 165-167, 172, 180, 188, 204, 209, 213-216, 223, 233, 264 logophoric 9 context of empathy 13, 14 interaction 13 reproaches 13 contextual alternatives 10, 11, 26, 28, 48, 166, 167, 261 contrast 28, 33, 64, 68, 84, 104, 106, 109-111, 145, 162, 167, 239, 248, 255, 262 contrastiveness 79, 84, 85, 264 control 5, 107, 108, 111, 112, 140, 142, 145, 146, 149, 150, 155, 158, 159, 175, 176, 179, 186, 187, 191, 203, 215, 216, 219, 227, 235, 259 coreference 20, 56, 61, 64-67, 77, 84, 245, 247

coreferential 60-63, 65, 66, 70, 74, 75, 77, 81, 245, 246 cross-linguistic 4, 71 definiteness 6 deixis 67, 75 delay of principle B 60, 63, 68 desemanticization 49 detransitivizing 43 developmental sequence 58 discourse 1, 4-8, 12, 13, 15, 22-24, 33, 36, 46, 54-56, 60, 64-68, 70, 73-76, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 9092, 100, 109, 112, 125, 151, 170, 208, 229, 233, 236, 237, 241, 245-248, 252, 255, 256, 261, 264 centrality 64 child-oriented 12, 23 discourse information 54, 68, 78, 81 discourse properties 54, 68, 78, 79, 91, 241, 245 discourse domain 76 discourse prominence 8, 248, 261 discourse-level anaphora 64, 66 discrete category 28, 44 domain 20, 55, 58, 65, 68, 71, 74, 76, 79 Dutch 49 emphatic reflexive 88, 262 entailment 28 Estonian 17, 257-259 event structure 2, 3, 31, 42, 51, 105, 106, 108, 109, 112, 113, 115-118, 121, 122, 130, 137, 142, 173, 183, 188, 226, 233, 234, 256 external cause 27, 30, 34, 51, 52 facilitative 18, 19 finite verb 37 Finnish 17 focus particle 37-39, 47, 49, 103, 104, 140 formal distinctness 15, 16, 18

Index 277 formal identity 2, 15, 17, 18, 84, 89, 236, 255, 258 form-function 2, 3, 7, 54, 70, 91-93, 99, 122, 225, 243, 244, 255 French 16 functional perspective 54, 119 genitive determiner 17, 91, 197, 247, 253 governing category 56, 71, 72 grammar type 57-59, 90, 91, 250252 grammaticalization 82

performance 68 properties 56, 60, 74 local domain 20, 55, 74, 76, 79 locality requirement 71, 73, 91, 247, 264 locally-bound 55, 56, 63, 64, 67, 79, 83, 86, 252, 255 logophor 20, 68, 73, 76-79, 261 logophoric reflexives 55, 56, 64, 68, 76-81, 90, 91 logophoricity 9, 263 logophoric pronoun 255 long-distance binding 20, 55, 71, 84, 264

head 16, 19, 21, 77, 237, 249, 253 Icelandic 20, 55, 71, 72 impersonal 18, 19 implicational hierarchy 72 implicational scale 19 inanimate 8-10, 24, 28, 31, 34, 35, 40, 41, 47, 51, 53, 137 incorporated head 77 indexing 61 indices 66 individuated 45, 113 inherently contrastive expressions 82-84, 264 innate 56, 65, 66 internal cause 28, 34, 51 intransitivity 18 inversed 42 Irish 21, 78, 85 Italian 16 Japanese 20, 55, 71-73 Korean 55 Latin 20 lexical features 60, 69 field 5 knowledge 68

Mandarin 20 manner adverb 33, 46 mismatch condition 62-64, 69, 246, 262 Modern English 81, 82, 84 modifier 32 morphological complexity 42 morphosyntactic categories 16 case 7, 16, gender 7, 17, 36, 42, 84 number 7, 17, 36, 37, 42, 84, 197 person 7, 16, 17, 36, 42, 52 morphosyntax 4 negation 30, 31, 116, 126 non-anaphoric 57, 81, 90, 93, 99, 237, 249, 250-253, 255, 258 non-coindexed 61 non-complementary distribution 75 non-coreferntial 61-63, 74, 77, 81 non-individuated 45, 113 non-local 20, 55, 64, 70-73, 75, 78, 83, 90, 91, 236, 255, 264 non-logophoric 78 non-nominative 2, 22, 23, 53, 77, 89, 92, 123, 260 non-prototypical 35, 36, 200 non-referential use of reflexives 15, 18, 19, 84, 246

278 Index Norwegian 60, 68-70, 74, 248 of one’s own accord 2, 5, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 33, 42, 51-53 Old English 77, 82-84 on one’s own 2, 22, 23, 25, 39, 41, 46-48, 50 overgeneralizations 59, 72, 91 parameter 72 of variation 15 of transitivity 25, 37, 44, 45, 46 resetting 82 passive 18, 19, 35, 36 periphery 8, 20, 77, 170 perspective 71, 73, 75, 78, 79, 254, 255, 259, 261 perspectivizing function 20 polysemic 41 pragmatic principle P 61-63 predicate 10, 14, 28, 75, 76, 79, 80, 105, 110-113, 137, 140, 146, 173, 203, 205, 252, 262 pre-final position 38 prepositional phrase 35, 36, 40, 46, 234 principle A 54-57, 59, 62, 63, 75, 91 principle B 54-56, 58, 60-64, 66 processing constraints 65 pronoun antisubject-oriented 69, 70, 74 personal 20, 21, 54, 55, 61, 63, 69, 74, 75, 81, 83, 131, 132, 138, 139, 142, 170, 235, 245, 246, 247, 258 possessive 36, 58, 59, 69, 74, 91, 235, 248, 259, 263 reflexive 2-4, 15-21, 35, 42, 5460, 62, 68, 70, 75, 79, 81, 82, 84-87, 89, 91-93, 97, 98, 185, 236-247, 249, 251-253, 255, 256, 258 pronoun semantic identity errors 60 properties

agentive 3, 5, 24, 34, 35, 89, 247 formal semantic 5 morphosyntactic 2, 5, 15, 22, 23, 234, 235 pragmatic 2-4, 60, 89, 234, 236, 238, 239, 245, 246 referential 16, 20, 21, 54, 56, 61, 62, 64, 67, 71, 73-75, 78, 79, 81, 246 semantic 5, 7, 23, 46, 77, 113 proto-role 28 prototypical 1, 24, 27, 28, 31, 36, 39, 43, 44, 46 prototypical agent 24, 31 quantified noun phrase 62, 63 referent animate 34, 40, 41, 51 human 13, 30, 42 inanimate 10, 31, 34, 40, 41, 51, 137 referential expression 75 reflexives 15, 16, 18-20, 55, 57, 58, 62-64, 71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 86, 248, 255, 263 reflexivity 75, 80 Rule I 65-67, 74 Russian 16 scalar particle 39 semantic bleaching 49 semantic overlap 23 semantic primitives 31 semantic role 28, 262 semantic shift 50 sentence-final 37, 38, 46 sentence-level anaphora 64, 66 sentience 28, 29 Slovak 16, 18, 49, 257 snake-sentences 75 specification 25

Index 279 state 28, 40-42, 44, 46, 99, 104, 105, 110-113, 115, 117, 118, 120-122, 130, 137, 172, 173, 204 structural factors 92 subject position 2, 4, 16, 19-21, 28, 35, 57, 58, 60, 78, 81, 82, 84-86, 90, 91, 235, 237, 249-255, 258260 subset principle 71, 72 syntactic complexity 36 syntactic knowledge 54-56, 73, 74, 89 syntactic principles 54, 55, 236 target language 21, 22, 84, 89, 92, 99 telic 2, 40-46, 51, 99, 105, 110-113, 115, 117, 118, 120-122, 130, 131, 137, 138, 142, 146, 173, 183, 188, 226, 233, 234 telicity 6, 39, 92 thematic role 8, 28, 35, 36, 108, 261 theta-role 76

too 6, 13, 14, 98, 103-105, 110, 111 topicalization 38, 46 transitive sentences 25, 29, 48 transitivity 18, 23, 25, 37, 43-47 transitivity scale 46 truth conditions 30 truth-value judgement task 80 Turkish 17, 20, 263 typological 2, 15-18, 22 V2 language 42 viewpoint 68, 71, 73, 78 volition 23, 27-31, 34, 44-46 von allein 1, 23-31, 33-35, 37, 3941, 47, 51, 97, 137, 138, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, 183, 197, 202, 226, 262, 264 von selbst 1, 5, 22-31, 33-41, 47, 51, 97, 155, 161, 197, 202, 262 von sich aus 1, 5, 23, 25, 37, 39, 40, 42, 52, 53 willfullness 27, 31, 33