Title: Information%20structure%20and%20choice%20of%20perspective%20in%20Hungarian%20narrative%20discourse:%20a%20developmental%20study
1Information structure and choice of perspective
in Hungarian narrative discourse a developmental
study
- Gabriella Fekete
- Dynamique Du Langage (UMR 5596 CNRS Université
Lyon 2) - gabriella.fekete_at_univ-lyon2.fr
- Syntax of the Worlds Languages lll, Free
University of Berlin, September 25-28, 2008
2Narrative production
- Organization of events by linguistic expressions
- Multi-propositional structure
- Coherence
- Guide of attention flow in the story
3- Mastery of many linguistic tools
- BUT
- Difficulties in the construction of a narration
4- Several linguistic options for the organization
of the information flow (Jisa et al. 2002) - ?
- Constructions in competition for the same function
5Berman Slobin (1994)
- Dimensions of event construal
- selection of topic
- selection of loci of control and effect
- selection of event view
- selection of degree of agency.
6Distribution of information
- Choice of elements
- Attribution of salience
- Selection of foreground or background
7Foundations of a basis of reference
- order of access important
- ?
- Privilege of the initial element (Gernsbacher
Hargreaves 1992, Croft 1994) - Initial focus of attention (Langacker 1998)
- Starting point (MacWhinney 1977)
8Problem with the terminology starting point
- Languages with fixed word order (English,
French) - First element subject/agent topic starting
point - ?
- Equivalents
9- Languages with flexible word order (Hebrew,
Spanish, Turkish, Hungarian) - First element subject/agent / direct objet /
indirect object - In Hungarian
- Not obligatory topic ? clauses beginning with the
verb - Pro dropobject marking in the verb ? clauses
containing a verbal form - S/A, starting point, topic not equivalents
- ?
- Use of the term perspective
10Several devices for the manipulation of
perspective (Berman Slobin 1994)
- Transitivity
- (1) a.The boy was frightened because an owl came
out. - b. The boy was afraid of the owl.
- c. The owl frightened the boy.
11- Reference form
- (2) The boy hung on to the antlers of a deer. The
deer/he/which/this one ran away.
12- Voice
- (3) a. The bees chased the dog.
- b. The dog was chased (by the bees).
- c. (fr.) Le chien senfuit. The dog ran
away.
13- Topicalization, Word order
- (4) a. As for the frog, the boy saw it.
- b. (hu) A békát nézte a fiú. The
frog(acc.) saw the boy.
14- How do Hungarian children and adults organize the
components of information? - Which participant do they prefer to take as the
perspective?
15Methodology
- Subjects
- 5 age groups 3, 5, 7/8, and 11/12 years of age,
and adults - 15 subjects in each group
- Monolingual Hungarian speakers from middle class
backgrounds
16Task
- A series of pictures with no text
- ?
- Elicitation of the narrative
174 episodes treated here
183-year-olds 5-year-olds 7-8-year-olds 11-12-year-olds adults Total
n 15 15 15 15 15 75
Total number of clauses 43 63 68 76 78 328
Mean clauses per subject 2.87 4.2 4.53 5.07 5.2
Range 1.6 2.7 2.8 1.9 3.9
Mean of episodes not mentioned per subject 1.6 0.87 0.53 0.53 0.33
Number of subjects who do not mention all episodes 12 8 7 3 3
Range 1.3 1.2 1.2 2.3 1.2
- Table 1. Number of subjects, number of clauses
encoding the 4 targeted events, mean and range
of clauses coded per subject.
19Characteristics of the Hungarian Language
- Agglutinative language of the Finno-Ugrian
language family - Pro-drop
- Case-marked grammatical relation for every
argument (17 cases) - No gender
20- Object marker in transitive verb forms (2 types
of conjugation). - (5)
- a fiú meg-ijeszt-ett egy
bagly-ot - def boy prev-to frighten-past.3S indef
owl-ACC - the boy frightened an owl
-
- a-ki le-lök-t-e
a fá-ról - rel-animate prev-to push-past-3SO def
tree-delative - which pushed him out of the tree
21- No passive construction
- Lexicalized verbal form for the middle voice
- Left-dislocation ? another register
22- SVO (subject-verb-object) canonical word order
- - Very flexible
- - Pragmatically determined (topic-
focus-comment) - 3 syntactic 3 pragmatic
- positions functions
- Sentence-initial position ? topic
- Immediately preverbal position ? focus
- Postverbal position ? background information
(comment)
23- Topic definite and/or animate NP
- Focus the most information-bearing element
- Identification - the strongest accent of the
sentence - - pre-verb moved after the
verb - Post-verbal position backgrounded / defocused NP
24- Restrictive hierarchy of the position of the
argument in perspective
25Argument in perspective
Initial (topic)
26- (6)
- a. viszont egy ideges vakond
meg-csíp-t-e - but indef nervous mole
prev-to bite-past-3SO -
- az orr-á-t
- def nose-poss-ACC
-
- but a nervous mole has bitten his nose (1906.d)
- b. itt meg a kutyá-t
el-kerget-ik - here and def dog-ACC prev-to
chase-present-3PO -
- a legy-ek
- def fly-pl
-
- and here the dog, the flies are chasing it
(508.f)
27Argument in perspective
Initial (topic)
Grammatical (subject/agent)
28- (7)
- mert meg-harap-t-a a
orr-á-t - because prev-to bite-past-3SO def
nose-poss-ACC -
- because it bit his nose (507.b)
-
-
- b. és itt le-dob-ja
- and here prev-to throw-present-3SO
-
- and it throws him here (307.c)
29Argument in perspective
Initial (topic)
Grammatical (subject/agent)
Grammatical (object)
30- (8)
- ugyanis kerget-ik a
méh-ek - ideed to chase-present-3PO def bee-pl.
- indeed, the bees are chasing it. (2107.n)
31Argument in perspective
Initial (topic)
Grammatical (subject/agent)
Grammatical (object)
Post-verbal
32- (9)
- ott le-dob-t-a
a szarvas - over there prev-to throw-past-3SO def deer
-
- a kis-fiú-t
- def little-boy-ACC
- over there, the deer has thrown the little boy
(801.a)
33Argument in perspective
Initial (topic)
Grammatical (subject/agent)
Grammatical (object)
Post-verbal
Pre-verbal (focus)
34- (10)
- mert az odú-ból egy bagoly jött
elo - because def hole-elatif indef owl to
come.past.3S prev - because it was an owl that came out o the hole
(1108.f)
35Results
- Graph1. Mean () of the distribution of
intransitive versus transitive clauses in the 4
episodes - Intransitive constructions decrease
(F(4,65)2.323,p.0658) - Transitive options increase (F(4,65)2.045,p.0984
) - Intransitive clauses with obliques increase
(F(4,65).588,p.6726)
36- Only clauses with at least two participants
(transitive clauses, intransitive clauses with
oblique(s)) - One device alternating perspective in Hungarian
- ?
- Variations in word order
37- Graph 2. Mean () of the distribution of
positions of the actor/agent perspective in the
clauses with two participants in the 4 episodes - 3-year-olds grammatical forms (F(4,65).768,p.54
96) - 5 and 7/8-year-olds initial position
(F(4,65)3.022,p.0238) - 7/8-year-olds post-verbal position
(F(4,65)2.075,p.0942) - 11/12-year-olds and adults alternance of initial
and grammatical positions
38- Graph 3. Mean () of the distribution of the
position, the characters and the linguistic means
used for the actor/agent perspective in the
clauses with two participants in the 4 episodes. - Secondary characters actor/agent
(F(4,65)5.172,p.0011) - 3-year-olds grammatical options
(F(4,65).522,p.7199) - 5 and 7/8-year-olds lexical noun phrases
(F(4,65)3.126,p.0205) - 11/12-year-olds and adults alternance of
grammatical and lexical devices - 11/12-year-olds pronominals in remarkable
proportion (F(4,65)5.409,p.0008)
39- Graph 4. Mean () of the distribution of
positions of the oblique/patient perspective in
the clauses with two participants in the 4
episodes - 3-year-olds grammatical forms (F(4,65)3.187,p.0
188) - 5 and 7/8-year-olds initial position
(F(4,65)1.222,p.3103) - 11/12 ans and adults initial position
40- Graph 5. Mean () of the distribution of the
position, the characters and the linguistic means
used for the oblique/patient perspective in the
clauses with two participants in the 4 episodes. - Primary characters oblique/patient
(F(4,65)1.322,p.2713) - 3-year-olds grammatical options
(F(4,65)3.187,p.0188) - 5 and 7/8-year-olds lexical noun phrases
(F(4,65).685,p.6050) - 11/12-year-olds and adults lexical noun phrases
- Adults pronominals in significative proportion
(F(4,65)1.700,p.1607)
41Discussion
- Clauses with two participants increase with age
- 3 and 5-year-olds intransitive clauses
- 7/8 and 11/12-year-olds intransitive and
transitive clauses - Adults transitive clauses
42- Secondary characters actor/agent
- Primary characters oblique/patient
- ?
- Secondary characters do the action
- Primary characters affected by the action
- Oblique/patient perspective ? increases with age
- ! 3-year-olds appearance of word order which
take the oblique/patient in perspective
43- 3-year-olds grammatical forms for the
perspective - 5 and 7/8-year-olds lexical noun phrases
whatever the perspective - 11/12-year-olds and adults alternation of the 2
linguistics tools for the actor/agent, lexical
noun phrases for the oblique/patient
44- Pronominal oblique/patient at the beginning of
sentences in 11/12-year-olds and adults
surprising - ?
- In Hungarian, personal pronouns used with a
tonic function - ?
- Synthesis of parallel actions of the two
protagonists, thus contrasted
45- Different linguistic tools depending on the age
groups ? no mastery of the conventional rules of
referential coherence until the age of 11/12
years - ?
- Resort to different strategies
- - thematic subject strategy (pronominal forms to
refer to the main character irrespective of the
function), - - nominal strategy (full nominal even for
maintaining characters) ) - - and anaphoric strategy ( pronominals for
maintaining reference but nominals for
switching). (Karmiloff-Smith 1981, Wigglesworth
1997).
46- Position of the arguments in perspective ? link
to the strategies mentionned above -
- 3-year-olds actor/agent or oblique/patient
integrated in the verbal form -
- 5 and 7/8-year-olds actor/agent or
oblique/patient in initial position
47- Post-verbal position attested in the 7-8 year
olds - ?
- Actor/agent taken in background
- ?
- Strong topicalization is compensated
48- 11/12-year-olds and adults initial and
grammatical positions for the actor/agent and
initial position for the oblique/patient
49Conclusion
- 3-year-olds attempt to alternate perspectives
but exclusively with verbal forms integrating the
affected character - 5-year-olds mastery already unsteady of the use
of the different ways to encode the actions - 7/8-year-olds true variation of the canonical
word order for pragmatic reasons - From 7/8-year-olds initial position favoured
for the argument in perspective or its
integration in the verbal form ? choice depends
on the discursive function of the argument.
50- Linguistic means selected to package the
information properly encoded to discursive
functions ? difficult to control before
11/12-year-olds. - ?
- The establishment of the referential coherence
not perfectly mastered by the children - ?
- Use of different strategies (Karmiloff-Smith1981,
Wiglesworth, 1997, Fekete 2008) - - toddlers pronominal forms (thematic
strategy) - - oldest children nominals (nominal strategy)
- - adults coordination of these two strategies
(anaphoric strategy)
51- 7/8-year-olds particular concerning the
combination of the linguistic means favoured and
the position employed for the argument in
perspective - ?
- Post-verbal position for the lexical AC/AG
- ?
- At the same time resort to the nominal strategy,
and try to compensate the difficulties of the
referential task with the help of the pragmatic
functions of word order. - ?
- Solution for the excessive lexicalization at the
beginning of the sentence ? manipulation of the
referents order - ?
- This is another solution, which they already
master, to put the chosen element in background.
52- Capacity of all the children to put the patients
of the action in perspective, using different
linguistic and pragmatic tools - Most difficulties in the application of the
conventional rules of narration
53- Berman, R. Slobin, D. I. (Eds.) (1994) Relating
Events in Narrative A Crosslinguistic
Developmental Study. Hillsdale, NJErlbaum. - Croft, W. (1994) Voice beyond control and
affectedness. In Hopper, P. Fox, B. Voice Form
and Function. pp. 89-117. Amsterdam John
Benjamins. - Fekete, Gabriella (to appear 2008). Referential
cohesion in Hungarian a developmental study. - GERNSBACHER, M. A., HARGREAVES, D. (1992) The
privilege of primacy Experimental data and
cognitive explanations. In Payne, D. L.
Pragmatics of word order flexibility. pp. 83-116.
Philadelphia John Benjamins. - Jisa, H., Reilly, J., Verheoven, L., Baruch, E.
Rosado, E. (2002) "Cross-linguistic perspectives
on the use of passive constructions in written
texts." Journal of Written Language and Literacy,
5, 163-81. - Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1981) The grammatical
marking of thematic structure in the development
of language production. In Deutsch, W. (Ed.). The
childs construction of language. New York
Academic Press, 121-147. - Langacker, R. W. (1998) Conceptualization,
Symbolization, and Grammar. In Tomasello, M. The
new psychology of language Cognitive and
functional approaches to language structure. pp.
1-39. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum - MacWhinney, B. (1977) Starting points. In
Language, 53. pp. 152-168. - Mayer, M. (1969) Frog, Where are you? Amsterdam
Dial Press. - Strömqvist, S., Verhoeven, L. (Eds.) (2003)
Relating events in narrative typological and
contextual perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. - Wigglesworth, G. (1997) Childrens individual
approaches to the organization of narrative. In
Journal of Child Language 24 279-309.