Information%20structure%20and%20choice%20of%20perspective%20in%20Hungarian%20narrative%20discourse:%20a%20developmental%20study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Information%20structure%20and%20choice%20of%20perspective%20in%20Hungarian%20narrative%20discourse:%20a%20developmental%20study

Description:

www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:148
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Information%20structure%20and%20choice%20of%20perspective%20in%20Hungarian%20narrative%20discourse:%20a%20developmental%20study


1
Information 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

2
Narrative 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

5
Berman 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.

6
Distribution of information
  • Choice of elements
  • Attribution of salience
  • Selection of foreground or background

7
Foundations 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)

8
Problem 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 

10
Several 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?

15
Methodology
  • 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

16
Task
  • A series of pictures with no text
  • ?
  • Elicitation of the narrative

17
4 episodes treated here
18
3-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.

19
Characteristics 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

25
Argument 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)

27
Argument 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)

29
Argument 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)

31
Argument 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)

33
Argument 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)

35
Results
  • 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)

41
Discussion
  • 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

49
Conclusion
  • 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.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com