The analysis has shown that our Mandarin child data, consistent with Mandarin adult speech, demonstrated an accusative patterning, i.e., an alignment between the A role and the S role. This section aims to investigate whether the accusative pattern can be explained by the account suggested by Everett (2009), i.e., that there is a tendency for the O role to accommodate non-human referents, and for the A and S roles to accommodate human referents.
140
Preferred Argument Structure
3.2.1 The association between human-ness and grammatical roles
Table 10 presents the distributions of human referents across the grammatical roles in the children’s data. As seen in the table, human mentions appeared mostly in the A role in the speech of both children (60.02% and 62.92%); they rarely occurred in the O role (10.80% and 10.09%), and the rate of human mentions in the S role fell between these extremes (29.17% and 26.98%).
Table 10. Human mentions across roles
A S O Total
N % N % N % N % Lin 500 60.02 243 29.17 90 10.80 833 100.00 Jie 611 62.92 262 26.98 98 10.09 971 100.00
Further analysis was conducted to examine the distribution of human and non-human referents within each grammatical role. The results are presented in Table 11. As seen in the table, the majority of the A arguments were human in the two children’s speech (87.87% and 84.04%). In contrast, the majority of the O arguments were non-human (84.18% and 86.52%). The S role hosts human referents at a higher rate than the O role, but at a lower rate than the A role (59.27% and 36.75%).
Chi-square analyses reached statistical significance for the data for both children, indicating that the distributions of human and non-human referents differed across the grammatical roles.
141
Chiung-chih Huang
Table 11. Human and non-human mentions within each role
A S O χ2
N % N % N % Lin
Human 500 87.87 243 59.27 90 15.82 601.00***
Non-human 69 12.13 167 40.73 479 84.18
Total 569 100 410 100 569 100
Jie
Human 611 84.04 262 36.75 98 13.48 759.81***
Non-human 116 15.96 451 63.25 629 86.52
Total 727 100 713 100 727 100
*** p < .001
In sum, the results demonstrated that the feature of human-ness was associated with the grammatical roles in the data. The A role tended to contain human mentions, and the O role, non-human mentions; the S role appeared as an intermediate category when contrasted with the A and O roles.
Examples 5 and 6 illustrate the association between human-ness and grammatical roles. Examination of Example 5 shows that the A role of the transitive clause contains a human mention while the O role contains a non-human mention. In Example 6, the S role of the intransitive clause contains a human mention.
142
Preferred Argument Structure
(JIE is having dinner. MOT asks JIE whether one will grow taller after eating fish.)
‘Big brother YB is nodding.’
*JIE: 我 也 點點頭.
wo ye diandiantou
1SG also nod
‘I am nodding, too.’
3.2.2 The association between human-ness and referential forms / information status
Table 12 presents the distribution of the referential forms used for human and non-human mentions. As shown in the table, non-human referents were represented by a higher percentage of lexical forms than human referents in the speech of the two children (40.14% vs. 11.76% in Lin’s speech, and 28.43% vs. 6.9% in Jie’s speech). In contrast, human referents were more likely to be non-lexical than non-human referents (88.24% vs. 59.86% in Lin’s speech, and 93.1% vs. 71.57% in Jie’s speech). Chi-square analyses were conducted to examine the
143
Chiung-chih Huang
distributions. The results showed that the relationship between human-ness and referential forms was statistically significant in the speech of the two children.
Table 12. Referential forms for human and non-human mentions
Human Non-human χ2
N % N % Lin
Lexical 98 11.76 287 40.14 165.79***
Non-lexical 735 88.24 428 59.86
Total 833 100 715 100
Jie
Lexical 67 6.9 340 28.43 162.82***
Non-lexical 904 93.1 856 71.57
Total 971 100 1196 100
*** p < .001
Table 13 presents the relationship between human-ness and information status. As shown in the table, non-human referents were more likely to be new than human referents in the children’s speech (27.27%% vs. 5.40% in Lin’s speech, and 16.39% vs. 1.75 in Jie’s speech). In contrast, human referents were more likely to be non-new than non-human referents (94.60% vs. 72.73% in Lin’s speech, and 98.25% vs. 83.61% in Jie’s speech). Chi-square analyses showed that the relationship between human-ness and information status was also statistically significant in the two children’s data.
144
Preferred Argument Structure
Table 13. Information status for human and non-human mentions
Human Non-human χ2
N % N % Lin
New 45 5.40 195 27.27 140.48***
Non-new 788 94.60 520 72.73
Total 833 100 715 100
Jie
New 17 1.75 196 16.39 129.55***
Non-new 954 98.25 1000 83.61
Total 971 100 1196 100
*** p < .001
The results above revealed that the feature of human-ness was associated with the referential forms of arguments and the information status of referents. That is, non-human mentions were more likely than human mentions to be lexical and new.
To sum up, the results in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 demonstrated an association between non-human referents and the O role, and an association between non-human referents and lexical/new arguments.
Thus, as suggested by Everett (2009), the finding that lexical/new mentions were used mostly in the O role, as indicated in Preferred Argument Structure, may be due primarily to the fact that non-human referents so rarely occurred in the A/S roles.
3.2.3 The human-ness account
However, to have a more complete picture of this human-ness account, further investigation is needed. Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 provide finer-grained analyses for this account.
If human-ness is the major factor underlying the patterns observed in Preferred Argument Structure, as suggested by Everett (2009), we would expect that lexical/new arguments would tend to have non-human referents, regardless of the grammatical role of the argument. Further
145
Chiung-chih Huang
analysis was conducted to examine human and non-human mentions in each grammatical role.
Table 14 presents the analysis of the referential forms used for human and non-human referents in the A role, the S role, and the O role in the children’s speech. The results showed that regardless of the grammatical role of the argument, lexical arguments were more likely to represent non-human referents, and non-lexical arguments were more likely to represent human referents. Chi-square analyses revealed that, except in the case of the A role in Lin’s speech, all of the other results reached statistical significance.
Table 14: Referential Forms for human/non-human A, S, O
Lexical Non-lexical χ2
N % N %
Lin
A Human 45 9.00 455 91 n.s.
Non-human 8 11.59 61 88.41
S Human 29 11.93 214 88.07 6.87**
Non-human 36 21.56 131 78.44
O Human 24 26.67 66 73.33 17.62***
Non-human 243 50.73 236 49.27
Lin
A Human 26 4.26 585 95.74 13.79***
Non-human 15 12.93 101 87.07
S Human 15 5.73 247 94.27 18.43***
Non-human 76 16.85 375 83.15
O Human 26 26.53 72 73.47 6.15*
Non-human 249 39.59 380 60.41
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, n.s.: not significant
146
Preferred Argument Structure
Similarly, Table 15 shows the analysis of the information status of human and non-human referents in the A role, the S role, and the O role in the children’s speech. The results showed that regardless of the grammatical role of the argument, new mentions were more likely to represent non-human referents, and non-new arguments were more likely to represent human referents. Chi-square analyses revealed that, except in the case of the A role in Lin’s speech, all of the other results reached statistical significance.
Table 15: Information status for human/non-human A, S, O
New Non-new χ2
N % N %
Lin
A Human 14 2.80 486 97.20 n.s.
Non-human 3 4.35 66 95.65
S Human 17 7.00 226 93.00 10.68**
Non-human 29 17.37 138 82.63
O Human 14 15.56 76 84.44 12.07***
Non-human 163 34.03 316 65.97
Lin
A Human 5 0.82 606 99.18 9.65**
Non-human 6 5.17 110 94.83
S Human 5 1.91 257 98.09 24.68***
Non-human 58 12.86 393 87.14
O Human 7 7.14 91 92.86 10.51***
Non-human 132 20.99 497 79.01
** p < .01, *** p < .001, n.s.: not significant
147
Chiung-chih Huang
The findings demonstrated that the feature of human-ness was associated with the status of an argument in being lexical/non-lexical or new/non-new in the A, S and O roles. In other words, lexical/new arguments tended to have non-human referents, and non-lexical/non-new arguments tended to have human referents, regardless of the grammatical role of the argument.
3.2.4 Significance of role types
As shown above, non-human referents were more likely than human referents to be represented via lexical/new arguments, in any of the A, S, or O roles. However, such results did not seem to describe the complete picture. Careful scrutiny of the results in Tables 14 and 15 showed that role types were also significant in the sense that the grammatical roles were quite dissimilar in terms of rates of new/lexical arguments. As seen in the tables, non-human O’s were more likely to be lexical/new than non-human S’s and non-human A’s in the children’s data.
To further explore the effect of role types, the factor of human-ness was controlled in the following analyses; that is, human referents and non-human referents were examined separately in terms of grammatical roles and referential forms / information status. Figure 3 shows the analysis of human referents; the figure presents the distributions of the referential forms for human referents within each grammatical role in the children’s speech. The results showed that human O’s were more likely to be lexical (26.67% and 26.53%) than human S’s (11.93% and 5.73%) or human A’s (9.00% and 4.26%) in the children’s speech. In contrast, human O’s were less likely to be non-lexical than human S’s or human A’s. Chi-square analyses were conducted to examine the distributions, and the results revealed statistical significance in Lin’s speech and Jie’s speech. In other words, the role in which a human argument occurred influenced whether a lexical or a non-lexical form was more likely to be used.
148
Preferred Argument Structure
Human A Human S Human O Human A Human S Human O
Lin*** Jie***
%
Lexical Non-lexical
*** p < .001
Figure 3: Human A/S/O and referential forms
In order to understand which roles contributed to the significant difference in the Chi-square analyses, residual analyses were further conducted, as shown in Table 16. Table 16 indicates that in the children’s speech, the A role was significantly less likely to be lexical, that the O role was significantly more likely to be lexical, and that the distribution in the S role did not reach significance. In other words, a human referent was less likely to be represented by a lexical form if the referent was mentioned in the A role. In contrast, a human referent was more likely to be represented by a lexical form if the referent was mentioned in the O role.
149
Chiung-chih Huang
Table 16. Residual analysis: Referential forms for human A/S/O
Human A Human S Human O
Lin
Lexical -3.0▽ 0.1 n.s. 4.6▲
Non-lexical 3.0▲ -0.1 n.s. -4.6▽
Jie
Lexical -4.2▽ -0.9 n.s. 8.1▲
Non-lexical 4.2▲ 0.9 n.s. -8.1▽
▽: significantly low; ▲: significantly high; p < .05 if∣adjusted residual∣> 1.96; p
< .01 if∣adjusted residual∣> 2.58; p < .001 if∣adjusted residual∣> 3.29.
Non-human referents were also analyzed, and Figure 4 demonstrates the distributions of referential forms for non-human referents within each grammatical role in the children’s speech. Similarly, the results showed that non-human O’s were more likely to be lexical (50.73% and 39.59%) than non-human S’s (21.56% and 16.85%) and non-human A’s (11.59%
and 12.93%) in the children’s speech. In contrast, non-human O’s were less likely to be non-lexical than non-human S’s and non-human A’s.
Chi-square analyses were conducted to examine the distributions, and the results revealed statistical significance in both Lin’s speech and Jie’s speech. In other words, the role in which a non-human argument occurred also influenced whether a lexical or a non-lexical form was more likely to be used.
150
Preferred Argument Structure
Figure 4: Non-human A/S/O and referential forms
Moreover, the residual analyses presented in Table 17 showed that both the A role and the S role together were significantly less likely to be lexical while the O role was significantly more likely to be lexical. The patterns were observed in the speech of both children. In other words, a non-human referent was less likely to be represented by a lexical form if the referent was mentioned in the A role or the S role than if it was mentioned in the O role. In contrast, a non-human referent was more likely to be represented by a lexical form if the referent was mentioned in the O role than if it was mentioned in the A role or the S role.
151
Chiung-chih Huang
Table 17. Residual analysis: Referential forms for non-human A/S/O Non-human A Non-human S Non-human O
Lin Lexical -5.1▽ -5.6▽ 8.2▲
Non-lexical 5.1▲ 5.6▲ -8.2▽
Jie Lexical -3.9▽ -6.9▽ 9.0▲
Non-lexical 3.9▲ 6.9▲ -9.0▽
▽: significantly low; ▲: significantly high; p < .05 if∣adjusted residual∣> 1.96; p
< .01 if∣adjusted residual∣> 2.58; p < .001 if∣adjusted residual∣> 3.29.
The results above thus revealed that when taking into account the human-ness of referents, role types still played a significant role in determining the referential form of a referent. O’s were more likely to be lexical than S’s and A’, regardless of the human-ness of the referent. S’s in general patterned with A’s rather than with O’s. Interestingly, this pattern is consistent with the overall A/S alignment observed in the data.
Examples 7, 8, 9, and 10 illustrate how role types are associated with referential forms for human mentions and for non-human mentions.
Example 7 demonstrates a transitive clause in which both the A role and the O role are human mentions, and Example 8 shows an intransitive clause in which the S role is also a human mention. As seen in the examples, the A role and the S role are non-lexical while the O role is lexical.
152
Preferred Argument Structure (7) Lin, #6, 2;6
(LIN is pretending to be a pianist.)
*LIN: 媽媽 # 你 要 鋼琴師 嗎?
mama # ni yao gangqinshi ma
Mom 2SG want pianist QST
Mom, do you need a pianist?
*MOT: 鋼琴師 喔 # OK.
gangqinshi o # OK
pianist o OK
‘A pianist? OK.’
(8) Lin, #6, 2;6
(MOT and LIN are playing a game.)
*LIN: 我們 先 休息 一下.
women xian xiuxi yixia
1PL first break a while
‘We’ll first take a break for a while.’
*MOT: 休息 一下.
xiuxi yixia
break a while
‘Take a break for a while.’
Example 9 demonstrates a transitive clause in which both the A role and the O role are non-human mentions, and Example 10 shows an intransitive clause in which the S role is also a non-human mention. As seen in the examples, the A role and the S role are non-lexical while the O role is lexical.
153
Chiung-chih Huang (9) Lin, #6, 2;6
(MOT and LIN are talking about the types of food that are sold in McDonald’s.)
*MOT: 還有 賣 什麼?
haiyou mai shenme
else sell what
‘What else does (it) sell?’
*LIN: 媽媽 # 還有 賣 魚條.
mama # haiyou mai yutiao
Mom else sell fish fingers
‘Mom, (it) also sells fish fingers.’
(10) Jie, #34, 3;1
(JIE says that she does not like cranberry juice.)
*JIE: 因為 它 酸酸的.
yinwei ta suansuande
because 3SG sour
‘Because it tastes sour.’
*MOT: 對 它 很 酸.
dui ta hen suan
yes 3SG very sour
‘Yes, it tastes very sour.’
In addition to the analysis of referential forms, further analysis was conducted to examine information status in relation to grammatical roles for human referents and non-human referents, respectively. The analyses of information status revealed similar results. As seen in Figure 5, human O’s were more likely to be new (15.56% and 7.14%) than human S’s (7% and 1.91%) and human A’s (2.8% and 0.82%) in the children’s speech. In contrast, human O’s were less likely to be non-new than human S’s and human A’s. The results of the Chi-square analyses were significant. Furthermore, the results of the residual analyses presented in Table 18 showed that the A role was significantly less likely to be new;
the O role was significantly more likely to be new, and the distribution in
154
Preferred Argument Structure the S role did not reach significance. In other words, a human referent was less likely to be new if the referent was mentioned in the A role. In contrast, a human referent was more likely to be new if the referent was mentioned in the O role.
97.2 93
84.44
99.18 98.09
92.86
1.91 7.14
2.8 7 0.82
15.56
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Human A Human S Human O Human A Human S Human O
Lin*** Jie***
%
New Non-new
*** p < .001
Figure 5: Human A/S/O and information status
155
Chiung-chih Huang
Table 18. Residual analysis: Information status of human A/S/O
Human A Human S Human O
Lin
New -4.1▽ 1.3 n.s. 4.5▲
Non-new 4.1▲ -1.3 n.s. -4.5▽
Jie
New -2.9▽ 0.2 n.s. 4.3▲
Non-new 2.9▲ -0.2 n.s. -4.3▽
▽: significantly low; ▲: significantly high; p < .05 if∣adjusted residual∣> 1.96; p
< .01 if∣adjusted residual∣> 2.58; p < .001 if∣adjusted residual∣> 3.29.
Figure 6 shows the analysis of non-human referents. Similarly, the results showed that non-human O’s were more likely to be new (34.03%
and 20.99%) than non-human S’s (17.37% and 12.86%) and non-human A’s (4.35% and 5.17%) in the children’s speech. In contrast, non-human O’s were less likely to be non-new than non-human S’s and non-human A’s. The results of the Chi-square analyses were significant. Moreover, residual analyses in Table 19 showed that both the A role and the S role together were significantly less likely to be new while the O role was significantly more likely to be new in the children’s data. Thus, the results revealed that a non-human referent was less likely to be new if the referent was mentioned in the A role or the S role. In contrast, a non-human referent was more likely to be new if the referent was mentioned in the O role.
156
Preferred Argument Structure
Table 19. Residual analysis: Information status of non-human A/S/O Non-human A Non-human S Non-human O
▽: significantly low; ▲: significantly high; p < .05 if∣adjusted residual∣> 1.96; p
< .01 if∣adjusted residual∣> 2.58; p < .001 if∣adjusted residual∣> 3.29.
The results further demonstrated the significance of role types. O’s were more likely to be new than S’s and A’s, regardless of the human-ness of the referent. In other words, S’s in general patterned with A’s rather than with O’s, which is also consistent with the overall pattern of an A/S alignment in the data.
157
Chiung-chih Huang
Examples 7, 8, 9, and 10, can also be used to illustrate the association between role types and information status for human mentions and for non-human mentions. Example 7 shows a human A and a human O while Example 8, a human S. As seen in the examples, the human A and the human S are non-new while the human O is new. In addition, Example 9 shows a non-human A and a non-human O while Example 10, a non-human S. Similarly, the non-human A and the non-human S are non-new while the non-human O is new.
To sum up, the analyses above revealed that while the feature of human-ness was an important factor contributing to the patterns of referent distribution observed in the data, the factor of role types also played a significant role. There may be a cumulative effect of the two factors. As shown in the results, non-human O’s contained the highest percentage of lexical/new mentions among all of the argument types.
4. DISCUSSION
This study investigated whether Preferred Argument Structure is characteristic of early child Mandarin, and whether early child Mandarin exhibits an A/S alignment of referent distribution, reflecting the pattern observed in Mandarin adult speech. In addition, we also examined whether the patterns observed in child Mandarin can be explained by the account of human-ness suggested by Everett (2009).
The results showed that while Mandarin child language conforms to the constraints of Preferred Argument Structure, it does not support the hypothesis of an ergative structuring of discourse. It was shown that the constraints on the A role can hold for the S role as well. The results thus revealed that early child Mandarin exhibits an A/S alignment, which is consistent with the accusative patterning observed in Mandarin adult speech.
Du Bois suggested a cognitive motivation for Preferred Argument Structure, i.e., that there exists an architecture for cognitive processing, in which S and O are reserved for the high cost work of the introduction of new referents. This cognitive motivation, however, has been questioned by a number of studies, including Everett (2009) and the
158
Preferred Argument Structure present one. Empirically, the ergative pattern suggested by the cognitive account does not appear to be a universal phenomenon. Theoretically, the cognitive motivation may not be the most parsimonious account. Everett suggested that the well-established semantic and pragmatic factors regarding human-ness provide a better and more parsimonious account for the distribution of given/new referents. That is, it was argued that the feature of human-ness can better predict and explain new referent
Preferred Argument Structure present one. Empirically, the ergative pattern suggested by the cognitive account does not appear to be a universal phenomenon. Theoretically, the cognitive motivation may not be the most parsimonious account. Everett suggested that the well-established semantic and pragmatic factors regarding human-ness provide a better and more parsimonious account for the distribution of given/new referents. That is, it was argued that the feature of human-ness can better predict and explain new referent