Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:04:38.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2008

JENNIFER SPENADER ,
ERIK-JAN SMITS  and
PETRA HENDRIKS
JENNIFER SPENADER*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
ERIK-JAN SMITS
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
PETRA HENDRIKS
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
Address for correspondence: Jennifer Spenader, Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 407, 9700 AK Groningen, The Netherlands. tel: +31-50-3636327; fax: +31-50-3636687; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many comprehension studies have shown that children as late as age 6 ; 6 misinterpret object pronouns as co-referring with the referential subject about half the time. A recent review of earlier experiments testing children's interpretation of object pronouns in sentences with quantified subjects (Elbourne, 2005) also suggests that there is a ‘Pronoun Interpretation Problem’. In contrast, two experiments addressing English children's pronoun production (Bloom, Barss, Nicol & Conway, 1994; de Villiers, Cahillane & Altreuter, 2006) show almost perfect usage. The aim of this study is to verify this asymmetry between pronoun production and pronoun comprehension for Dutch, and to investigate the effects of coherent discourse and topicality on pronoun production and comprehension. Employing a truth-value judgment task and an elicited production task, this study indeed finds such an asymmetry in 83 Dutch children (age range 4 ; 5–6 ; 6). When object pronouns were clearly established as the topic of the target sentence, the Pronoun Interpretation Problem dissolved entirely. These results are compatible with the asymmetrical grammar hypothesis of Hendriks & Spenader (2005/2006) and suggest, contrary to many previous claims, that children are highly proficient at using pragmatic clues in interpretation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 23 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

We are especially grateful to the children, teachers and parents of the Haydnschool and the Nassauschool in Groningen for participating in this study. We would also like to thank Jill de Villiers and the Acquisition Lab at the University of Groningen for discussion of the experiment, Robbert Prins for making the drawings used in the experiment, John Hoeks for his help with the statistical analysis of the data, and the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Petra Hendriks gratefully acknowledges the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (grant no. 277-70-005) for their financial support.

References

REFERENCES

Bloom, P., Barss, A., Nicol, J. & Conway, L. (1994). Children's knowledge of binding and coreference: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language 70, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. (1998). Anaphora and soft constraints. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D. (eds), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, 93–13. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chien, Y.-C. & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions on binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 13, 225–95.Google Scholar
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J. & Phillips, C. (2006). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
de Hoop, H. & Krämer, I. (2005/2006). Children's optimal interpretations of indefinite subjects and objects. Language Acquisition 13, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J., Cahillane, J. & Altreuter, E. (2006). What can production reveal about Principle B? In Deen, K. U., Nomura, J., Schulz, B. & Schwartz, B. D. (eds), The Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition–North America, 89–100. University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 333–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. & Rosen, S. T. (1990). Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 187–222.Google Scholar
Grosz, B., Weinstein, S. & Joshi, A. (1995). Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21, 203–225.Google Scholar
Hamann, C., Kowalski, O. & Philip, W. (1997). The French ‘Delay of Principle B’ Effect. In Hughes, E., Hughes, M. & Greenhill, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 205–219. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hendriks, P., Englert, C., Wubs, E. & Hoeks, J. (to appear). Age differences in adults' use of referring expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information.Google Scholar
Hendriks, P. & Spenader, J. (2004). A bidirectional explanation of the pronoun interpretation problem. In Schlenker, P. & Keenan, E. (eds), Proceedings of the ESSLLI '04 Workshop on Semantic Approaches to Binding Theory. Nancy, France. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/schlenker/BindingWorkshop.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, P. & Spenader, J. (2005/2006). When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition 13, 319–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, P., van Rijn, H. & Valkenier, B. (2007). Learning to reason about speakers' alternatives in sentence comprehension: A computational account. Lingua 117, 1879–96.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (1984). On markedness and binding principles. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 14, 154–82.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (1991). L'acquisition des anaphores et des pronoms lexicaux en français. In Guéron, J. & Pollock, J. Y. (eds), Grammaire générative et syntaxe comparée, 229–53. Paris: Editions du CNRS, Sciences du Langage.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes 1, 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, C. (1993). Errors in anaphora acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Koster, J. & Koster, C. (1986). The acquisition of bound and free anaphora. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Maxfield, T. L. (1992). Principle B and contrastive stress. Language Acquisition 2, 337–58.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D., Smith Cairns, H. & Hsu, J. R. (1990). Binding principles in the grammar of young children. Language Acquisition 1, 121–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKee, C. (1992). A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition 2, 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philip, W. & Coopmans, P. (1996). The double Dutch Delay of Principle B Effect. In Stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E. & Zukowski, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 20th Boston University Conference on Language Development, 576–87. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2004). The processing cost of reference-set computation: Acquisition of stress shift and focus. Language Acquisition 12, 109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (to appear). Processing or pragmatics? Explaining the coreference delay. In Gibson, T. & Pearlmutter, N. (eds), The processing and acquisition of reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smits, E. J., Hendriks, P. & Spenader, J. (2007). Using very large parsed corpora and judgment data to classify verb reflexivity. In Branco, A. (ed.), Anaphora: Analysis, algorithms and applications, 6th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC 2007, LNAI (Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence) #4410, 77–93. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP ellipsis and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar