Acquisition de la syntaxe. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 37
About This Presentation
Title:

Acquisition de la syntaxe.

Description:

scenes: a) big bird tickles cookie monster. b) cookie monster tickles big bird. task: where is cookie monster tickling big bird? Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:120
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 38
Provided by: annechr
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Acquisition de la syntaxe.


1
Acquisition de la syntaxe.
  • Anne Christophe
  • Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et
    Psycholinguistique,
  • CNRS-EHESS-ENS, Paris
  • http//www.lscp.net
  • http//www.lscp.net/persons/anne
  • enseignement cours Acquisition de la syntaxe

2
Paradoxe dinitialisation
  • Les expériences chez les adultes suggèrent que la
    structure syntaxique est extrêmement utile pour
    contraindre lacquisition des verbes
  • or, pour apprendre la structure syntaxique, on
    supposait quil fallait être capable danalyser
    les phrases en mots, de connaître le sens de ces
    mots, et de connaître le sens de la phrase
    entière.

3
Paradoxe dinitialisation
  • Le lexique est un pré-requis pour lacquisition
    de la syntaxe
  • la syntaxe est un pré-requis pour lacquisition
    du lexique.
  • Solutions
  • découper les composantes du langage en morceaux
  • exploiter de linformation extérieure au
    paradoxe ex prosodie informe lanalyse
    syntaxique

4
Initialisation syntaxique de lacquisition du
lexique
  • Est-ce que les jeunes enfants exploitent la
    structure syntaxique des phrases pour apprendre
    un nouveau mot?

5
Learning a new word noun vs adjective
Familiarization Phase
Test Phase
No Word "See here?" Novel Noun "See the
blicket? See what I have?" Novel
Adjective "See the blickish one?"  
Waxman Markow, 1995
6
12-13 months-olds
p lt .05 Chance 50
7
Learning a new word noun vs adjective objects
that share both category membership and a salient
property
  • Can infants flexibly construe the very same
    objects either
  • as members of an object category (animal
    flamingo) or
  • as embodying an object property (purple soft)?
  • . Does their construal vary systematically as a
    function of naming?
  • Can we assess the evolution of infants
    expectations?

8
stringent test Pitting Category vs Property

FAMILIARIZATION
TEST CAT vs PROP
CONTRAST
(Booth Waxman, 2003)
9
(No Transcript)
10
At 14 months Infants tease apart the nouns
Booth Waxman (2003)
11
Whether they are phrase final or medial Booth
Waxman (2003)
The ability to generalize adjectives depends on
several things
12
Nouns vs adjectives Waxman et al.
  • Infants become able to identify a new word as a
    noun between 12 and 14 months of age (and infer
    that it refers to objects)
  • adjectives are identified as not being nouns
    whether infants are able to generalize to objects
    sharing the same property depends on the task at
    hand, even in very old children (3-4 years) it
    seems that children need to have a
    well-established category before they will learn
    a word for one of its properties (color, texture).

13
Pour tester la syntaxe des jeunes enfants
expériences de compréhension de phrases, avec
présentation d'une vidéo
  • Suggèrent que les enfants connaissent déjà
    l'ordre des mots dans leur langue (Hirsh-Pasek
    Golinkoff, 1996)
  • peut-être qu'ils exploitent la structure
    syntaxique des phrases pour inférer le sens du
    verbe (Naigles)
  • difficultés d'interprétation...

14
Testing early comprehension with the cross-modal
preferential looking task
  • scenes a) big bird tickles cookie monster
  • b) cookie monster tickles big bird
  • task where is cookie monster tickling big
    bird?

result subjects look more at appropriate video
than inappropriate video
Interpretation perform a syntactic analysis of
the sentence? Subject Agent? Or, know that
agent is named first in the sentence?
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M. (1996). The
origins of grammar evidence from early language
comprehension. Cambridge Mass. MIT Press.
15
Learning about verb meanings Naigles et al.
  • Video synchronous action duck and bunny making
    arm circlescausative action the duck forces
    the rabbit to bend over
  • speech three groups of children1. the duck
    is blicking the bunny!2. the duck and the
    bunny are blicking!3. blicking!

Naigles, L. G., Kako, E. T. (1993). First
contact in verb acquisition defining a role for
syntax. Child Development, 64, 1665-1687.
16
Learning about verb meanings Naigles et al.
  • Test phase the two actions are separated (one on
    the left, one on the right), children hear find
    blicking
  • Results 2-year-olds look longer at causative
    action when they had heard the verb in the
    transitive frame (the duck is blicking the
    bunny)
  • Ccl 2-year-old use the syntax of sentences to
    make hypothesis about verb meaning
  • interprétation alternative???

17
Exploiter la diversité des structures syntaxiques
pour inférer le sens d'un verbe initialisation
syntaxique
  • Encore une fois, double actionune causative
    (faire faire quelque chose à quelqu'un), une non
    (action de contact)
  • présenter le verbe dans une seule construction
    syntaxique, ou dans deux constructions
  • une transitive,
  • une intransitive.

Naigles, L. (1996). The use of multiple frames in
verb learning via syntactic bootstrapping.
Cognition, 58, 221-251.
18
  • As Landau and Gleitman (1985) hypothesized in
    their original proposal of Syntactic
    Bootstrapping, children may exploit the multiple
    frames in which a verb can be presented in their
    acquisition of that verb's meaning. The idea is
    that while a single frame may be insufficient to
    accurately constrain a verb's meaning given a
    particular extra-linguistic context, multiple
    frames may provide enough information to do so.
    For example, in Landau and Gleitman's
    investigation of the acquisition of look by a
    blind child named Kelli, they suggested that it
    was the set of syntactic frames in which look
    appeared that enabled Kelli to establish this as
    a verb of perception. To Kelli, look was a verb
    of haptic perception rather than visual
    perception (i.e., it meant explore with the hands
    rather than explore with the eyes).

19
  • Part of this meaning could be attributed to the
    fact that Kelli's mother only used look in
    reference to nearby things and not far-away
    things. However, she also used such verbs as
    have, give, play, and put in reference to nearby
    things that is, the spatial context did not
    distinguish look from the nonperceptual verbs.
    Interestingly, the syntactic frames in which look
    was used did provide this distinction look
    differed from have in allowing PPs (compare Kelli
    looked AT THE BALL with Kelli has AT THE BALL),
    it differed from put in not allowing frames
    containing three NPs (compare KELLI put THE BALL
    in THE BASKET with KELLI looked THE BALL in THE
    BASKET), and it differed from go in allowing
    sentence complements (compare Look HOW TO DO IT
    with Go HOW TO DO IT). Thus, Landau and Gleitman
    conjectured that it was the conjunction of these
    frames in Kelli's input, plus the accompanying
    spatial contexts, which enabled Kelli to
    establish explore haptically as the meaning of
    look.

20
Exemple des alternances
  • Causative alternation(1) The girl dropped the
    ball.(2) The ball dropped.
  • Object omission alternation(3) The cat was
    scratching the door.(4) The cat was scratching.

21
Dessin expérimental
  • Causative alternationthe duck is sebbing the
    frogthe frog is sebbing -gt action causative
  • Omitted objectthe duck is sebbing the frogthe
    duck is sebbing -gt action de contact? (?)
  • Frameless sebbing! -gt indifférent
  • Intransitive onlythe duck is sebbing. -gt
    action de contact? (?)

22
Matériel expérimental
23
Set-up expérimental
24
Exemple de scénario
25
Résultats
F(1,112)3.19, plt0.05 (one-tailed)
16
16
16
12
Préférence globale pour l'action
causative seules les filles, dans la condition
'omitted object', ne la montrent pas.
26
Résultats item par item
27
Conclusion
  • The current study supplies the first
    experimental evidence that young language
    learners can take advantage of cross-sentential
    information. In this study, the pair of
    sentence frames (the transitive/intransitive
    alternation) makes a specific prediction
    concerning the meaning of the verb that appears
    in it. That is, hearing a verb in a transitive
    frame can inform a child that the verb's action
    affects an object, possibly in a causative
    relation, and so directs the child to focus on
    these types of actions in the accompanying scene.
    Hearing a verb in an intransitive frame suggests,
    among other things, that the verb's action is
    spontaneous or internally controlled, so that the
    child's attention is directed to these types of
    actions. Hearing the same verb in both frames may
    inform the child that both types of actions are
    feasible for this verb, but may not (yet) provide
    enough direction for the child's attention in a
    given scene of set of scenes.

28
Conclusion
  • However, hearing the verb in both frames in the
    Omitted Object alternation provides information
    that the verb's action is not causative, and that
    it refers to an ongoing activity in the scene (in
    this study, this was one involving contact). In
    sum, the information provided by the two frames
    in the OO alternation in this study would seem to
    be more specific than that provided by sentence
    forms being considered in combination but not in
    relation to each other. Both kinds of
    cross-sentential information are likely to be
    useful to the language learner, though, and both
    should be investigated in more detail.
  • ???

29
Perspectives
  • How can the child learn about syntax?
  • If possible, before he/she knows many words?
  • Pay attention to grammatical words, articles,
    pronouns, etc, to identify syntactic categories
    (noun/verb/)
  • E.g. look, the gorp is blicking!!

30
Bootstrapping syntaxique test expérimental
  • Les bébés peuvent-ils exploiter les mots
    grammaticaux pour inférer la catégorie syntaxique
    des mots de contenu?
  • - je jaurime -gt jaurime est un verbe,
    réfère probablement à une action.
  • - une jaurime -gt jaurime est un nom, réfère
    probablement à un objet.
  • (note bien moins complexe que verbe de pensée
    vs verbe de communication)

31
Test
  • Les bébés apprennent un mot nouveau ex
    observent une pomme qui tourne sur
    elle- même entendent regarde, elle
    dase! (répété quatre fois).
  • test deux pommes, une qui tourne sur elle-même,
    une qui fait autre chose,
  • question montre-moi celle qui dase!
  • réponse en pointant du doigt (bébés
    préalablement entraînés à pointer du doigt vers
    lécran 4 mots nouveaux, 2 essais par mot).

32
Résultats bébés de 23 mois.
Montre-moi celle qui dase!
33
Groupe contrôle
  • pomme qui tourne sur elle-mêmeGroupe
    verbe Groupe Nom regarde, elle dase!
    regarde la dase!
  • test deux pommes, une qui tourne sur elle-même,
    une qui fait autre chose,
  • Groupe verbe Groupe Nom montre-moi mont
    re-moi celle qui dase! la
    dase! (question idiote).

34
Résultats bébés de 23 mois.
Montre-moi celle qui dase!
Montre-moi la dase!
Savita Bernal (thèse de doctorat).
35
Conclusion initialisation syntaxique
  • L'information sur la structure syntaxique peut
    être utile pour contraindre l'acquisition du sens
    des mots (étude adulte, Gillette et al. 1999)
  • les enfants (américains) de 14 mois distinguent
    déjà entre un mot nouveau présenté comme un nom
    ( objet) et un mot nouveau présenté comme un
    adjectif ( pas objet mais pas encore
    propriété)
  • les enfants (français) de 23 mois distinguent
    entre un mot nouveau présenté comme un nom (
    objet) et un mot nouveau présenté comme un verbe
    ( action)
  • qu'en est-il des enfants plus jeunes?? (18 mois)
  • Comment ont-ils fait pour apprendre ça??

36
Objectif des expériencesTomasello, M.,
Akhtar, N. (1995). Two-year-olds use pragmatic
cues to differentiate reference to objects and
actions. Cognitive Development, 10, 201-224.
37
Discussion générale.
  • Lenfant utilise des indices socio-pragmatiques
    pour déterminer si un adulte qui prononce un mot
    nouveau cherche à indiquer un objet ou une action
    (Tomasello Akhtar).
  • L'enfant utilise des indices linguistiques pour
    déterminer si un nouveau mot réfère à un objet ou
    à une action (Gleitman Bernal)
  • Y a-t-il un paradoxe?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com