Research on Child Language Acquisition

Research on Child Language Acquisition Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language edited by Margareta Almgren, Andoni Barreña, María-José Ezeizabarrena, Itziar Idiazabal, and Brian MacWhinney Section I: Plenaries 2001 Cascadilla Press Contents Volume 1 L enseignement des discours de l appropriation pratique à la maîtrise formelle Jean-Paul Bronckart... 1-16 From CHILDES to TalkBank Brian MacWhinney... 17-34 The study of children s language in Spain: The bilingual child Miquel Siguan... 35-40 Section II: Bilingualism Development of clause linkage in narratives: A comparison of Turkish children in Australia, France, the Netherlands and Turkey Jeroen Aarssen, Mehmet-Ali Akıncı, and Kutlay Yağmur... 41-56 Development of perspective in narrative texts of Turkish-French bilingual children in France Mehmet-Ali Akıncı... 57-77

2001 Cascadilla Press All rights reserved. Published 2001 Printed in the United States of America Copyright for the individual papers belongs to the authors. Copyright notices are located at the bottom of the first page of each paper. Reprints for course packs can be authorized by Cascadilla Press. ISBN 1-57473-119-X library binding (2 volumes) ISBN 1-57473-219-6 CD-ROM To order a copy of this proceedings or to request a current catalog, contact: Cascadilla Press P.O. Box 440355 Somerville, MA 02144 USA phone: 1-617-776-2370 fax: 1-617-776-2271 e-mail: sales@cascadilla.com http://www.cascadilla.com

Early Verb Constructs in Spanish Eugenia Sebastián, Pilar Soto & Virginia C. Mueller Gathercoleº Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, University of Wales Bangorº 1. Introduction In recent work on the development of language one central issue has been whether or not children's first constructions in language are productive. Do children have knowledge of a general nature regarding morphological and syntactic patterns or is their knowledge lexically specific? On the one hand, many researchers working within a UG framework have proposed that young children have relatively complex, productive systems early on, at least in languages different from English (e.g. Hyams 1996, for Italian; Hub Faria, Fretias, Soares, Ramos, & Batores 1999, for Portuguese). These studies suggest that children have a knowledge of structural and semantic relations between verbs and verbal structures. Thus, for example, for a transitive verb like draw, children would have some knowledge about the fact that the action involves both an agent and a patient. If we paraphrase this idea in terms of linguistic description, we would say that the action involved by the verb requires the presence of two participants or arguments. One participant is the subject of predication (subject argument) and the other is the complement of the verb (object argument). On the other hand, other researchers have proposed that children use limited scope formulae and lexically-based patterns (e.g., Tomasello 1992, Pine & Lieven 1993, Pizzuto & Caselli, 1994). Children's knowledge does not consist of abstract rules, but more superficial, item-specific knowledge. Children start to place verbs in a somewhat restricted way; that is, the child restricts a specific verb to a particular argument structure or structures during the first two years of life, with no 'consistent' word order across verbs (Tomasello, 1992). Somewhat between these two extremes, some authors have suggested that children have productive knowledge at an 'intermediate' level. For example, Choi (1998, 1999) has argued that Korean-speaking children use verbs predominantly with 'core arguments' and in a 'preferred word order'. Before the age of two, they follow an OV order for transitive verbs, and SV for intransitive verbs. Therefore, her data support the 'verb-island' proposal only for a brief period. (See Pine, Lieven & Rowland 1998 with regard to English.) The goal of this paper is to explore this issue with data from Spanishspeaking children. Spanish has a rich inflectional system of suffixes on verb roots to encode person, number, tense/aspect, and mood. (See Gathercole, 2001 Eugenia Sebastián, Pilar Soto & Virginia C. Mueller Gathercole. 1245-1259.

1246 Sebastián & Soto, 1999, p. 140, for a description of verbal forms in Spanish). The primary question is the extent to which Spanish-speaking children's early verb structures are based on general patterns, and to what extent they are based on limited, verb-specific knowledge. In previous work (Gathercole et al. 1999, Gathercole, Sebastián, & Soto 2000), we examined verb morphology in Spanish children's speech and found little evidence of generalized knowledge until well after the age of 2. Our analysis showed a gradual verbal learning for Spanish children, who 'seem to move step by step towards productivity by learning forms verb by verb' (Gathercole et al., 1999, p.161). Here we focus on argument structure and sentence frames used by the same two children. To address these questions, we explored the range of verb structures and word order used by the children. We focused on transitive and intransitive verbs, excluding the copulas ser and estar to be from the study. The identification of transitive and intransitive verbs, however, is less than straightforward in Spanish, given that arguments can often be deleted. We classified verbs according to adult usage, taking into account Mendikoetxea s (1999) reflection that 'the classifcation of a verb as transitive or intransitive is something that is intrinsic in its meaning and independent from the correct use of the verb with or without a direct complement' (p.1577). The absence of an explicit direct object on some verbs does not mean that these verbs are not transitive. According to Mendikoetxea, transitive verbs express a state or an event that requires the presence of two participants or arguments; intransitive verbs denote an event that semantically requires a sole participant or argument (see also Perlmutter 1978, Alcina & Blecua 1975). There are several cues for the identification of subjects in Spanish. One of these is position of a noun phrase in the sentence, although word order in Spanish is flexible, as described below. In addition to position, other cues for the identification of subjects include verb inflections for person and number and the use of clitics. For example, the clitic se can turn a transitive verb with an agent subject into a middle with a patient subject. Compare, for example, Juan cerró la puerta, John closed the door with Se cerró la puerta, The door closed. (See Talmy's 1985 description of the typical patterns of alteration of the verb argument structure in Spanish; see Sebastián & Slobin 1994 for information on the use of these patterns in children's narratives.) The word order of Spanish has traditionally been described as SVO (with preverbal object clitics with finite verbs and post-verbal object clitics with infinitival forms), but with a broad range of options for variations on this word order. Thus, for example, Spanish allows 'free inversion' (Rizzi, 1982), or 'free phrase order' (Mathews, 1981). Bosque (1980) has noted that in declarative sentences, word order deviations may occur for melodic reasons: UN COCHE ROJO quiere Ana A RED CAR Ana wants, but also for other reasons--for example, when the subject is longer than usual: Las señoras ricas compran aquí, Aquí compran las señoras ricas Rich ladies buy (things) here, but *Aquí las señoras ricas compran (examples taken from Bosque, 1980, p. 32). Torrego

1247 (1984) has noted that, in addition to free inversion, there are several whconstructions where subject inversion is obligatory: Qué querían esos dos? / * Qué esos dos querían? What did those two want? These are examples of what is called 'partial interrogative' sentences, where inversion is mostly obligatory. In 'total interrogative' sentences, however, inversion is not obligatory: Ha llamado Juan? Juan ha llamado?, Has John phoned? Hernanz & Brucart (1987) argue that it is better to limit typological studies regarding word order to declarative sentences. Declarative sentences are considered to be unmarked relative to interrogative, exclamatory and imperative sentences. Just as in other languages, the relationship between the subject and the verb in Spanish is modified in non-declarative sentences, so that these typically have marked orders. Because interrogatives, imperatives, and exclamations have marked word orders, we focus on declarative sentences in the analyses presented below. 2. Method 2.1. Subjects The subjects were two children, María and Juan, learning Spanish monolingually in the Madrid area. Each child was videotaped and audiotaped in naturalistic settings approximately every month for half an hour--maría between 9 and 30 months of age and Juan between 9 and 25 months of age. For the purposes of this investigation, we examined María's sessions between 18 and 30 months of age, and Juan's between the ages of 20 and 25 months. Since we were interested in precise details of the usage of verbs and their forms, every videotape and transcript was re-examined and reanalyzed by the three researchers, two of whom are native Spanish speakers, for accuracy of transcription. When doubts or disagreements occurred, the companion audiotapes were consulted and listened to on a REVOX audiorecorder. Occasionally, two further native Spanish speakers were consulted. In the revised transcriptions, the child's exact utterances, along with any morphological or phonetic deviations from the adult norm, were noted. This process yielded revised transcripts for all the utterances containing verbal elements that were produced by each child. 2.2. Analysis For the purpose of this study, the focus was on finite declarative sentences. We selected all utterances containing a finite transitive or intransitive verb in a declarative sentence. Utterances containing imperatives, infinitives, interrogatives, and exclamatory forms only were excluded. Similarly, impersonal or monopersonal verbs like llover to rain and the verbs ser and estar 'to be' were excluded.

1248 Table 1 shows the total count of verbs used by Juan and María, as well as the portion of the total that the declarative sentence sample constituted. The difference between the two totals is primarily due to the fact that both children used a large number of imperatives and infinitives. (A + infinitive is a very typical construction used to express commands/orders. See Gathercole et al. 1999.) Table 1. Verbs used by each child in the original database and in the selected sample. (Number of Verb Types above, Verb Tokens below) Data Juan Verbs/Tokens Database 26 188 Sample 13 (50%) 42 (22.34%) María Verbs/Tokens 88 706 55 (62.5%) 198 (28.04%) 3. Results In order to compare our data with Choi's (1999) findings for Korean, we divided each child's data into different developmental periods according to Choi's criteria. (Note that this division of our data into 'periods' is a working division and does not imply that we believe the data naturally fall into such periods. In fact, our earlier work suggests gradual and continual development.) According to Choi, each new period begins with a noteworthy increase in the number of tokens in comparison with the preceding month. These quantitative changes are related to changes in the argument structures. So, in her data, during period 1 there were very few verbs with core arguments. Verbs were produced with specific arguments and specific lexical items and there were no signs of coherent argument structure, either for transitive or for intransitive verbs. Thus, verbs could be said to form verb islands in this period. In period 2 (20-21 months for her subjects) there were important qualitative and quantitative changes. The syntactic structures were very different from the ones produced in the previous period: On the one hand, the number of utterances without a core argument decreased; on the other hand, distinct argument structures emerged for transitive verbs (combined with a direct object) and intransitive verbs (combined with a subject). In period 3 (24-25 months for her subjects) the same pattern continued. It appeared to be a period of linguistic consolidation and enrichment rather than one of important changes. Table 2 (a and b) shows the number of transitive and intransitive verbs (in types and tokens) produced by each of our subjects in declarative sentences at periods comparable to those outlined by Choi. The main criterion that was used to differentiate periods was an increase in the number of tokens. In Juan s case

1249 only two periods could be established. Period 2 begins at 23 months of age (slightly later than in Choi s subjects) and coincides with the initial appearance of some productivity in his verbal morphology (Gathercole et al. 1999, 2000). In María s case, period 2 starts at 26 months of age (quite a bit later than in Choi s subjects) and a month after the beginning of her morphological productivity (Gathercole et al. 1999, 2000). Period 3 commences at the age of 28 months with a sharp increase in the number of tokens, which is particularly notable at 30 months of age. (Note that at 29 months there is a decrease in the number of verbs and tokens due to the fact that data recording was interrupted because María was ill). Table 2. a. Juan s utterances containing transitive and intransitive verbs. JUAN Age Transitive Intransitive Total type/token type/ token type/ token Period 1 20.5-2 / 2 2 / 2 21.25 3 / 3 1 / 2 4 / 5 Period 2 23.8 2 / 12 4 / 8 6 / 20 25.13 5 / 6 4 / 9 9 / 15 Total 7* / 21 6* / 21 13* / 42 Table 2.b. María s utterances containing transitive and intransitive verbs. MARIA Age Transitive Intransitive Total type/token type/token type/token Period 1 18.3-1 / 1 1 / 1 19.24 2 / 4 2 / 3 4 / 7 22.17 1 / 1 2 / 4 3 / 5 24 2 / 2-2 / 2 25.9 2 / 2 1 / 3 3 / 5 Period 2 26.11 7 / 12 3 / 8 10 / 20 27.11 15 / 15 1 / 4 16 /19 Period 3 28.22 18 / 34 6 / 15 24 / 49 29.19 9 / 12 3 / 3 9 / 15 30.16 19 / 69 3 / 6 22 / 75 Total 45* / 151 10* / 47 55* / 198 *Different verb types There are some similarities and a few differences between these two children. Both of them start out using only intransitive verbs in the first transcribed session. However, whereas overall Juan produced a similar number of verbs and tokens for both transitive and intransitive verbs, María shows a

1250 pronounced difference between the two types of verb (82% of the verbs and 76% of the tokens produced were transitive verbs). (In our other work (Gathercole et al. 1999, 2000) differences were also found in the kind and timing of contrasts that were produced. Thus, Juan establishes his first person contrast at 25 months of age, whereas María establishes her first tense/aspect contrast at the same age.) Due to the differences between the two subjects, we will analyze their data separately, first for transitive verbs and then for intransitive verbs. 3.1. Transitive Verbs. In Tables 3 and 4 the development of argument structures for transitive verbs can be seen. These tables contain the four types of possible frames encountered: utterances with verbs but no overt arguments, utterances with an object argument, those with a subject argument, and finally those with both kinds of arguments. The distinct types of order that are produced can also be seen. The figures correspond primarily to the basic forms (transitive/causative verb) (Talmy, 1985). The number of tokens out of the totals that correspond either to the reflexive form (intransitive/ inchoative) or to a past participial form correspoding to a stative are shown in parentheses. María is the only child who used the former forms (Juan lacks this form); and Juan is the only one to use past participial forms in place of statives (María used past participles with the auxiliary verb to form the present perfect tense, or without the auxiliary also to express the present perfect). JUAN At the age of 21 months Juan starts to use three different verbs, each one in a distinct morphological form and a dissimilar frame: romper break (roto aquí (it is) broken here V-Locative), beber drink (agua bebe (he) drinks water O-V) and querer want (yo quiero éste, I want this one S-V-O). Hence, there is no preferred frame for transitive verbs but rather each verb appears within a specific structure. Period 2 starts at 23 months of age. Juan incorporates a new transitive verb, quitar take off, with a single token (Negative-V, 3rd p. sing. present, clitic omitted). The remaining tokens correspond to the verb romper break (past participle), which begins to be produced in distinct frames (V, V-Locative, S-V and S-Affirmative emphatic-v: roto, roto aquí, éste roto, éste sí roto ). It is interesting to note that there are 11 tokens for the four frames in which this verb appears, so this one verb has a considerable effect on the patterns observed in the global data from Juan at all ages. Note that romper break is the only verb with which S-V is produced at any age. It is also responsible for 6 out of the 9 tokens in which verbs are produced without arguments.

1251 Table 3. Development of argument structure in Juan s transitive verbs JUAN Age V V,O S,V S,V,O VO OV SV VS SVO OVS Period 1 20.5 - - - - - - - 21.25 1 (1) - 1 - - 1 - Subtotal 1 (1) 33% 1 33% 1 33% Period 2 23.8 7 (6) - - 5(5) - - - 25.13 1 2 1-1 - 1 Subtotal 8 (6) 44% 3 17% 6 (5) 33% 1 6% Global Total 9 43% 4 19% 6 29% 2 10% Note: Items in parentheses indicate the number of 'stative' forms included in the totals. At the age of 25 months Juan produces five different verbs. Two of these had already appeared in previous months: querer want (which appears in the same morphological form within a new frame (Negative-V-O) and romper break, which appears in a distinct morphological form within a novel frame (Negative- DO clitic-v-s, no lo rompo yo, I do not break it ). The new verbs that he introduces are: poner put (éste pone (he) puts this O-V), tener, have (tengo pupa ahí '(I) have (a) hurt there' V-O-Locative) and ver see (no ve '(he) doesn't see' Negative-V, and no veo yo 'I don't see' Negative-V-S, without an obligatory object argument lo 'it'). The slight increase in the number of different verbs and frames could reflect a parallel slight increase in flexibility to use the diverse possibilities for word order that are allowed in the Spanish language. However, this suggestion is highly tentative, since Juan only uses a few verbs in a flexible manner. If the overall data are considered, we find that Juan s preferred pattern is that of a verb without arguments. If the verb romper is ignored, Juan uses verbs without arguments about as frequently as he uses verbs with a direct object, in the order V-O. MARIA In period 1 María starts to use one or two verbs each month (at the age of 22 months she only uses one verb, acabar finish (acabó) (3rd p. sing. perfective, with a missing clitic), which had already appeared the month before. The direct object is only marked in one case: hacer do/make (hecho caca 'done poop') (V-O, past participle, with a missing clitic). In the remaining cases the verb can be found alone: comer, eat (present participle), sacar, take out (1st p. sing. present, without an obligatory object), morder, bite (3rd p. sing.

1252 present perfect). There is one interesting case showing incorrect word order; V- Negative, (cojo no, instead of no (lo) cojo o no cojo (esto) (I) do not take (it), without an obligatory object). So, María s most generalized pattern is that of the verb without marking any arguments. Table 4. Development of argument structure in María s transitive verbs MARIA Age V V,O S,V S,V,O VO OV SV VS SVO SOV VSO VOS OSV Period 1 18.3 - - - - - - - - - - 19.24 3 1 - - - - - - - - 22.17 1 - - - - - - - - - 24 2 - - - - - - - - - 25.9 2 - - - - - - - - - Subtotal 8 89% 1 11% Period 2 26.11 3 5 2 - - 1 - - 1 - (3) 27.11 8 (4) 4 (1) 1-2 (1) - - - - - Subtotal 11 41% 12 44% 2 7% 2 7% Period 3 28.22 11 15 5 - - 2 - - - 1 (3) (1) 29.19 1 8 1 1-1 - - - - (1) 30.16 28 (6) 26 4 4 1 4 (1) 1 1 - - Subtotal 40 35% 59 51% 6 5% 10 9% Global Total 59 39% 72 48% 8 5% 12 8% Note: Items in parentheses indicate the number of reflexive/inchoative forms included in the totals. Period 2 starts at the age of 26 months, with a clear increase in the number of verbs and tokens used. For the first time reflexive/inchoative forms appear. At 26 months of age these forms emerge with new verbs in frames V-O (chupar suck and llamar call (both in 3rd p. sing. present), but at 27 months of age, they are produced in V-S and V structures. Some verbs that María had already used in previous months begin to reappear within novel morphological forms and within distinct frames. Hence, María s most frequently used verb at the age

1253 of 26 months is hacer do/make in the following frames: V (hace '(she)does', without an obligatory object), V-O (hecho caca 'done poop', missing clitic), V- O-S (hecho caca queca 'done poop doll', missing clitic), S-V-O (la queca ha hecho caca 'the doll has done poop', missing clitic). Other verbs continue to appear in the same morphological form, but they are used in new frames. This period also includes the appearance of the subject argument for two verbs: gustar like and cerrar close. In these two cases the frame is a new one, a negative sentence in which the subject argument appears in a postverbal position: Neg-V-S. María preferentially chooses to mark the object argument, but on some occasions this appears before the verb (three tokens) and on others after the verb (nine tokens). In all cases it involves different verbs. When the subject argument is marked, it emerges in the second position. The verb hacer is, as was pointed out earlier, an example in which both arguments appear, but in distinct positions (SVO and VOS). In short, when considered globally these results involve a period that is rich in verbs and morphological forms and that also shows a considerable richness in the number and types of frames, with a preference for combining the verb with the object argument. The order in which the object appears relative to the verb, however, appears to be lexically specified. Period 3 commences at the age of 28 months. A noteworthy increase occurs with regard to the number of tokens. Although new verbs appear, what really increases is the number of distinct morphological forms for each verb, especially for those that had already appeared in previous months. This is what happens in the case of the verb poner put, which María produced for the first time at 27 months of age as 3rd p. sing. present in a V-O structure ((que) pone e(s)to '(it) puts [=says] this'). Its forms are extended to 1st p. sing. and plural present, 2nd p. sing. and 1st p. plural present perfect, 1st p. sing. periphrastic future and present subjunctive, but this verb continues to appear mainly in V and V-O structures (with and without locatives). The exceptions seem to have to do with the appearance of object clitics (see Gathercole et al. 2000), where distinct orders appear: O-DO clitic-v-loc (esto lo pongo aquí this (I) put here, and S- IO clitic-do clitic-v: Yo me lo pongo I put it on me. In other cases the number of distinct morphological forms does not increase so drastically, but the frames in which the verb emerges change. This is what happens in the case of the verb tener have, which had appeared at 26 months of age in V-O structures (3rd p. sing. present). During period 3, the morphological forms of tener extend to 1st p. sing. present and to imperfective forms. At the same time, these morphological forms arise in different frames; V-O, Neg-V-O- Loc, V-S, S-V-O and V-S-O (e.g., tenía una (c)rema '(she) had a cream', tiene Javi 'Javi has', tiene Javi eso 'Javi has that'). Thus, this third period is characterized by a preference to mark the object argument and at the same time by flexibility in the use of different orders and frames.

1254 3.2. Intransitive Verbs The first thing that draws one s attention is the low number of intransitive verbs that are produced by the two children: 6 in Juan s case and 10 in María s case. Furthermore, only 3 verbs occur in both children s productions: the movement verbs caer fall, ir go, and saltar jump. JUAN It can be seen in Table 5 that during Juan s period 1 two verbs appear (ir go and llorar cry )--one movement verb and one activity verb. The verb ir go appears just once at 20 months of age without an argument. In contrast, the verb llorar cry appears at the age of 20 and 21 months with the same form (3rd p. sing. present) in two different frames--in one frame with a locative expression (Llora ahí el nene the boy cries there ) and in the other one without it. It is interesting to note that the subject of this verb is the same noun phrase (el nene the boy ) in both appearances and that it arises in a postverbal position (V-S). During period 2 Juan incorporates four new verbs, and he maintains the verbs from period 1. The four new verbs refer to movement: saltar jump, correr run, nadar swim and caer fall. However, the increase in novel verbs does not substantially modify the type of frame in relation to the previous period. So, the preferred structure is V, even though the clitic se appears in four tokens (se V), with two movement verbs: ir go and caer fall. The same deictic locative expression, ahí there, appears with the verb ir go (Ahí no va el nene the boy does not go there ). Table 5. Development of argument structure in Juan s intransitive verbs. JUAN Age Verbs tks V S,V V NegV SV V S V Loc S Loc Neg V S Period 1 20.25 2 2 1 - - 1 - - 21.25 1 2 - - - 1 1 - Subtotal 3 4 1 25% 3 75% Period 2 23.8 4 8 4 (# 2) 1-2 (# 1) - 1 25.13 4 9 7 (# 1) - 1 1 - - Subtotal 8 17 12(#3) 71% 5 (# 1) 29% Global Total # Clitic SE +V 11 [6 diff.] 21 13 62% 8 38% When taking the global word order into account, it can be seen that when Juan explicitly marks the subject, he maintains the postverbal position of the

1255 subject argument on four occasions, as contrasted with one occasion on which the subject is placed in front of the verb. Therefore, Juan s preferred structure seems to be V, followed by VS. MARIA In María s case, periods 1 and 2 are not very different in terms of the number of intransitive verbs produced. During period 1 she produces caer fall and ir go, and during period 2, she maintains caer fall and she incorporates 2 new verbs, hablar talk and venir come. The increase in the number of verbs takes place during period 3: ir go and caer fall are maintained, and enfadarse become angry, quedarse stay, saltar jump, vivir live, salir go out, and sudar sweat are all incorporated. The development of the frames during María s three periods is more interesting. During period 1, María preferentially uses intransitive verbs with proclitic pronouns. The only two verbs during this period that appear with the clitic se are caer fall and ir go, although María makes two errors of omission of the clitic pronoun with the verb caer fall. Table 6. Development of argument structure in María s Intransitive Verbs. MARIA Age verbs tks V S,V V CltV VLoc NgV SV SseV VS sevs Ng sevs Period 1 18.3 1 1-1 - - - - - - - 19.24 2 3 1 2 - - - - - - - 22.17 2 5 2 3 - - - - - - - 24 - -- - - - - - - - - - 25.9 1 3-1 - - - 1 1 - - Subtotal 6 12 10 83% 2 17% Period 2 26.11 3 10 6 1-2 - - - 1-27.11 1 6 1 - - - - 1 2 1 1 Subtotal 4 16 10 62.5% 6 37.5% Period 3 28.22 6 15 4 7 2-2 - - - - 29.19 3 4 1 - - - 1-1 1-30.16 3 5 1 2 1 - - - - 1 - Subtotal 12 24 18 75% 6 25% Global Total 22 [10 diff] 52 38 73% 14 27%

1256 During period 2, María s preferred frame is V. This is partly due to the emergence of the two verbs hablar talk and venir come. At the same time, María starts to mark the subject argument with the verb caer fall ; this marking of the subject argument with caer is always accompanied by the proclitic pronoun: éste se cayó this fell down. All the same, the word order is not consistent. Hence, we find se-v-s (se cayó el anillo the ring fell and S-se V (éste se cayó this one fell down ). In fact, with or without the clitic se, the subject argument appears in a postverbal position on more occasions than in a preverbal position in affirmative declarative sentences. During period 3, from the age of 28 months onwards, María does not show such a clear preference for frames. The number of proclitic pronouns increases, and the new verbs that occur with proclitic pronouns occur not only with third person clitics but also with first person (me) and second person (te) clitics (see Gathercole et al. 2000 for discussion). The use of clitics becomes so prevalent that María makes an interesting and infrequent mistake amongst Spanish children--a commission error of se with the verb saltar jump : se está saltando. Other possible frames are also added to María's repertoire. Locative arguments appear for the first time with the movement verbs ir go and quedar stay, which acts syntactically like a movement verb (de Miguel, 1999). With respect to word order, during this period there is no fixed position for overt subject arguments. Thus, a global perspective on María's use of intransitive verbs reveals that there is no indication that María feels a subject argument is required, nor that it appear in a particular location. Furthermore, if we look verb by verb, we find that intransitive verbs start to appear in frames such as se V or V before the appearance of subject arguments, locative arguments and negative sentences. 4. Discussion In this study we have analyzed whether or not children have knowledge of a general nature regarding syntactic patterns at any early period of development. In order to do this, we examined the productions of two Spanish-speaking children at periods of development comparable to those studied by Choi (1998, 1999). Our data show that in the two children studied here the earliest period is characterized by a low frequency of verbs and tokens joined to specific morphological forms, to specific frames and to specific word orders. This applies to both transitive and intransitive verbs. This period shows characteristics consistent with the verb island hypothesis (Tomasello, 1992), but its duration is longer than that found by Choi with Korean-speaking children. Period 2 is typified by an increase in transitive and intransitive verbs for both children. It is worth noting that during this period both children have already started to produce morphological contrasts in a productive manner (Gathercole et al., 1999, 2000). We found the beginning to involve the marking of the object argument in transitive verbs, whereas with intransitive verbs both children tend

1257 to choose a frame with no argument. Individual verbs begin to appear in distinct frames. With regard to word order, the children start using multiple word orders, sometimes even with the same verb. Period 3 was only in evidence in María's speech. The tendency to mark the object argument in transitive verbs, which was initiated in the previous period, becomes more prevalent at this point. It is interesting to note, in contrast, that in the use of intransitive verbs, one finds the continuation of the preference for the use of the verb without any arguments. However, a range of possibilities for the appearance of arguments, in different word orders, is in evidence. The development of this range may be closely tied to the development of clitics in María's speech. Summing up, the two Spanish children tend not to explicitly mark the subject argument either for transitive or for intransitive verbs. This result is in contradistinction to data found for other languages (Choi, 1999 for Korean). Secondly, Spanish children start to incorporate the object argument with transitive verbs from period 2 onwards. This is after the beginning of the productive use of morphological contrasts, as documented in Gathercole et al. 1999, 2000. Thirdly, each verb is initially joined or linked to a specific frame and a specific word order. It is only at the end of period 2 that the frames and the word orders become more flexible, which may signal movement from more lexically based structures towards more syntactically based ones. Spanish is a language that brings together a combination of formal characteristics that have not been studied in a unified way. On the one hand, there is a very rich verbal morphology that allows both the omission of the subject argument and very flexible word orders. The results of this study suggest that initially Spanish-speaking children are more focused on the morphological characteristics of their language than on the syntactic characteristics. This may be due to the fact that the morphological system in the Spanish language is very transparent, whereas the same thing cannot be said for its syntactic organization. Further, there is little evidence for strict word order patterns even when overt arguments do appear. Instead, the word orders used by these children appear to be tied to particular lexical items, so as more verbs enter each child's speech, the variety of word order patterns also increases. Endnotes * This study was supported in part by DGICYT (Spain, grant number PB091-0016, principal investigator: Dr. Antonio Maldonado), and in part by an Acciones Integradas grant (grant number HB95-49), co-sponsored by the British Council and the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. We would like to thank Dr. Antonio Maldonado for the use of the videotaped sessions.

1258 References Alcina, J. & Blecua, J.M. (1975) Gramática española, Ariel, Barcelona. Bosque, I. (1980) Sobre la negación, Cátedra, Madrid. Choi, S. (1998) Verbs in early lexical and syntactic development in Korean, Linguistics 36, 755-780. Choi, S. (1999) Early development of verb structures and the caregiver input in Korean: Two case studies, The International Journal of Bilingualism 2&3, 241-265. de Miguel, E. (1999) El aspecto léxico in I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, Espasa Calpe, Madrid, 2977-3060. Gathercole, V. C. M., Sebastián, E. & Soto, P. (1999) The early acquisition of Spanish verbal morphology: Across-the-board or piecemeal knowledge?, International Journal of Bilingualism 2&3, 133-182. Gathercole, V. C. M., Sebastián, E. & Soto, P. (2000) Lexically specified patterns in early verbal morphology in Spanish in M. R. Perkins & S. J. Howard (Eds.) New Directions in Language Development and Disorders, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York & London, 149-168. Hernanz, M.L. & Brucart, J.M. (1987) La sintaxis. 1. Principios teóricos. La oración simple, Crítica, Barcelona. Hub Faria, I., Fretias, M.I., Soares, C., Ramos, D. & Batoreo, H.. (1999) The first three and a half years of European Portuguese as L1, IASCL, San Sebastián. Hyams, N.M. (1996) The underspecification of functional categories in early grammar in H. Clahsen (Ed.) Generative perspectives on language acquisition, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 91-127. Mathews, P.H. (1981) Syntax, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mendikoetxea, A. (1999) Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas in I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 2, Espasa Calpe, Madrid, 1575-1722. Perlmutter, D.M. (1978) Impersonal passives and the unasccusative hypothesis in J.Jaeger et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley, 157-189. Pine, J.M. & Lieven, E.V.M. (1993) Reanalyzing rote-learned phrases: Individual differences in the transition to multiword speech, Journal of Child Language 20, 551-571. Pine, J.M., Lieven, E.V.M. & Rowland, C.F. (1998) Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category, Linguistics 36, 781-806. Pizzuto, E. & Caselli, M.C. (1994) The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a cross-linguistic perspective in Y. Levy (Ed.) Other children, other

1259 languages: Issues in the theory of language acquisition, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J, 137-187. Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht. Sebastián, E. & Slobin, D.I. (1994) The development of linguistic forms: Spanish in R. Berman & D.I. Slobin (Eds.) Relating events in narratives: A developmental cross-linguistic study, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. Talmy, L. (1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms in T. Shophen (Ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, vol 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tomasello, M. (1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Torrego, E. (1984) On inversion of Spanish and some of its effects, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 103-129.