Slide 1

Slide 2 Principle B and Phonologically Reduced Pronouns in Child English Jeremy Hartman Yasutada Sudo Ken Wexler Slide 3 Outline Background: Delay of Principle B Referential vs. Quantificational antecedents Full vs. Clitic Pronouns New study and results Discussion and implications Slide 4 Principle B Principle B: Pronouns cannot be bound (= co- indexed with and c-commanded) by a local antecedent. Responsible for ruling out sentences like: (1)Bill i is washing him i. Do kids have knowledge of this principle? Slide 5 Background: Delay of Principle B Many studies have found that young children allow a co-referent interpretation: (1)Bill i is washing him i. Adults: reject Kids (~ 3;0 6;0): often accept! Slide 6 Example: Chien & Wexler (1990) Slide 7 Adults: ~0% acceptance Children 5;0-6;0: 51% acceptance Slide 8 Other studies reporting Principle B Delay: English: Wexler & Chien 1985, Solan 1987, Grimshaw & Rosen 1990, McKee 1992, Matsuoka 1997 Dutch: Deutsch, Koster, & Koster 1986, Philip & Coopmans 1996. Icelandic: Sigurjnsdttir & Hyams 1992 Russian: Avrutin & Wexler 1992 Brazilian Portuguese: Grolla 2005 Slide 9 So far Basic Delay of Principle B Effect Quantificational antecedents Clitic pronoun effect New study and results Discussion and implications Slide 10 Referential vs. Quantificational Antecedents John washed him vs. Every boy washed him Slide 11 Two Routes to Co-reference Reinhart (1983): co-reference could in principle be produced in 2 different ways: Variable-binding under co-indexation: (a) John j washed him j. Accidental co-reference: (b) John j washed him k. [k John] Slide 12 Two Routes to Co-reference Variable-binding: (a)John j washed him j. [ill-formed for children and adults] Accidental co-reference: (b)John j washed him k. [disallowed by adults] [allowed by children!] Chien and Wexler: in the adult grammar, accidental co- reference is ruled out by an independent principle: Principle P: No co-reference without co-indexation! Slide 13 No accidental co-reference with quantificational antecedents Referential antecedent: John j washed him k. Accidental co-reference possible, if him refers to John. Quantificational antecedent: Every boy washed him k. Accidental co-reference impossible, since him cannot refer to every boy. Slide 14 Predictions Children should allow non-adultlike anaphoric interpretation whenever accidental co-reference is available. With quantificational antecedents, accidental co- reference is unavailable. Crucial prediction: children should reject the anaphoric interpretation when the antecedent is quantificational. Slide 15 Example: Chien & Wexler (1990) Slide 16 Adults: ~0% acceptance Children 5-6: 51% acceptance Adults: ~0% acceptance Children 5-6: 16% acceptance Slide 17 So far Basic Delay of Principle B Effect Quantificational antecedents Clitic Pronoun effect Conroy et al.s (2009) challenge New study, results, and discussion Slide 18 Clitic Pronoun Effect Slide 19 Clitic pronoun effect With clitic pronouns children correctly reject co-reference. E.g., Italian (Io) lamo (I like him) Baauw, Escobar, & Philip (1997): Spanish, 10% acceptance. Hamann, Kowalski & Philip (1997): French, 22% (3-4 y.o.); 0% acceptance (5 y.o.) McKee (1992): Italian 15% acceptance. Slide 20 Accounting for the clitic effect Why should children give adult-like responses with clitic pronouns? Recall: kids give adult-like responses when accidental co-reference is unavailable (e.g., with quantificational antecedents.) We want to show that accidental co-reference is unavailable for clitic pronouns Slide 21 Accounting for the clitic effect Avrutin & Wexler (1992): Accidental co- reference is unavailable with clitic pronouns, because clitics are referentially dependent -- they cant be deictic. E.g., Italian: # (Io) lamo. (I like him)[pointing to a person] Slide 22 Clitic pronouns in English? English has m, a reduced form of him and them, that also displays referential dependence. a) John j knows that I like m j b)Who do you like?# I like m. [pointing to a person] In fact, m has often been suggested as a clitic pronoun (Nevis et al. 1994, Spencer 1991) Slide 23 Accounting for the clitic effect Children know this property of clitic pronouns: they must be co-indexed with a discourse antecedent. Children know to use clitics in referentially dependent contexts (Schaeffer 2000) Accidental co-reference is impossible for clitic pronouns, since they are referentially dependent. The only route to the anaphoric interpretation would be via co-indexation with the antecedent ruled out by Principle B. Slide 24 Summary Children appear to violate Principle B whenever accidental co-reference is available. 2 cases where accidental co-reference is unavailable: Quantificational antecedents Clitic pronouns Kids give adult-like responses (i.e., reject co- reference) in both of these cases! Slide 25 So far Basic Delay of Principle B Effect Quantificational antecedents Clitic Pronoun effect New study, results, and discussion Slide 26 The Current Study Slide 27 Motivations for our study Can the clitic pronoun effect be demonstrated in English, using the reduced pronoun m? Our experimental design took into account a recent methodological critique (Conroy et al. 2009) of previous studies. Conroy et al.s claim: with a more sophisticated story, the DPBE disappears. Slide 28 Conroy et al.: Results 16 subjects, 4;0 5;6 Children accepted the anaphoric interpretation in 11% (7/64) of referential trials and in 14% (9/64) of quantificational trials. No Delay of Principle B effect! (and no Quantificational Asymmetry) Slide 29 Conroy et al.s Conclusion: Delay of Principle B effect was a methodological artifact of previous studies. With improved stories: Kids give adultlike performance not only with quantificational antecedents. But also with referential antecedents as well. Slide 30 Experimental Design 2 conditions: full pronoun, reduced pronoun. Truth-value judgment task Experimenters act out story. Puppet (Cookie Monster) makes a statement about the story: I think Childs task is to reward or correct Cookie Monster based on accuracy of his statement. Slide 31 Experimental Design Experimental materials: 4 stories, (near) replicas of Conroy et al.s scripts Each subject sees each story twice: once paired with a full-pronoun test sentence (e.g., I think Cow washed him) once paired with a reduced-pronoun test sentence (e.g., I think Cow washedm) Slide 32 Sample item (reduced condition) Slide 33 Experimental Design Target items interspersed with an equal number of filler items. Filler items used names in place of pronouns (e.g., I think Cow washed Horse) Filler items assigned dynamically, to balance the sequences of True and False sentences. Slide 34 Experimental Design Children tested over two ~20-min sessions consisting of 8 stories each (4 target, 4 filler). In a given session, a subject heard either all full-pronoun or all reduced-pronoun items. Full and reduced conditions for each subject are tested at least 1 week apart. Subjects randomly assigned to hear either the full-pronoun condition or the reduced- pronoun condition in their first session. Slide 35 Results Data from 18 subjects analyzed Ages 3;10 5;10, mean: ~4;11 Subjects not included in analysis if they got more than 2 filler items wrong (Conroy et al.s criterion) Slide 36 Results The difference is statistically significant (Wilcoxson signed rank test: W=387.5, Z=3.65 p