Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 979–1000 | Cite as

The Overt Pronoun Constraint Across Three Dialects of Spanish

  • Carlos Gelormini-LezamaEmail author
  • David Huepe
  • Eduar Herrera
  • Margherita Melloni
  • Facundo Manes
  • Adolfo M. García
  • Agustín Ibáñez
Article

Abstract

The overt pronoun constraint (OPC) states that, in null subject languages, overt pronoun subjects of embedded clauses cannot be bound by wh- or quantifier antecedents. Through the administration of two written questionnaires, we examined the OPC in 246 monolingual native speakers of three dialects of Spanish, spoken in Barranquilla (Colombia), Santiago (Chile), and Buenos Aires (Argentina). We tested separately the predictions that overt pronouns cannot be bound by wh- antecedents (Experiment 1) and that they cannot be bound by quantifier antecedents (Experiment 2). We found that the OPC was not operative in any of these dialects. In Experiment 1, the percentage of bound answers was approximately the same as the percentage of anaphoric answers. In Experiment 2, the percentage of bound answers was significantly higher than the percentage of anaphoric answers. Implications both for theories of pronoun resolution in null subject languages and for theories of first and second language acquisition are discussed.

Keywords

Overt pronoun constraint Null subject languages Spanish Pronoun resolution 

References

  1. Adjemian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning, 26, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphors and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748–765.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández Solera, S., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2002). Null vs. overt pronouns and the topicfocus articulation in Spanish. Journal of Italian Linguistics, 14(2), 151.Google Scholar
  4. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Baumann, P., Konieczny, L., & Hemforth, B. (2011). Expectations and coreference: How alternative constructions and referring expressions can serve as cues. In C. H. L. Carlson & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  6. Bertelson, P., Vroomen, J., & de Gelder, B. (2003). Visual recalibration of auditory speech identification: A McGurk aftereffect. Psychological Science, 14, 592–597.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 11–53). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Camacho, J. (2011). On null subjects: Towards a unified analysis of the null subject variation. Piscataway: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  9. Cameron, R. (1992). Pronominal and null subject variation in Spanish: Constraints, dialects, and functional compensation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  10. Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Crawley, R. A., Stevenson, R. J., & Kleinman, D. (1990). The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(4), 245–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers, C., & Smyth, R. (1998). Structural parallelism and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, N. (2000). On nature and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Escobar, M. J., Huepe, D., Decety, J., Sedeno, L., Messow, M. K., Baez, S., et al. (2014). Brain signatures of moral sensitivity in adolescents with early social deprivation. Scientific Reports, 4, 5354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans, G. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 337–362.Google Scholar
  23. Flores-Ferrán, N. (2002). A sociolinguistic perspective on the use of subject personal pronouns in Spanish narratives of Puerto Ricans in New York City. Munich: Lincom-Europa.Google Scholar
  24. Frederiksen, J. (1981). Understanding anaphora: Rules used by readers in assigning pronominal referents. Discourse Processes, 4, 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gelormini-Lezama, C., & Almor, A. (2013). Singular and plural pronominal reference in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. doi: 10.1007/s10936-013-9254-6.
  26. Gelormini-Lezama, C., & Almor, A. (2011). Repeated names, overt pronouns, and null pronouns in Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.]. Cognition, 32(2), 99–156.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Grecucci, A., Giorgetta, C., Rattin, A., Guerreschi, C., Sanfey, A. G., & Bonini, N. (2014). Time devours things: How impulsivity and time affect temporal decisions in pathological gamblers. PLoS One, 9(10), e109197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Heim, I. (1998). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In U. Sauerland & O. Percus (eds.), The interpretative tract, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 25.Google Scholar
  30. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., Colonna, S., Schimke, S., & Pynte, J. (2010). Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or Gricean maxims? In Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society, August 2010, Portland, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Higginbotham, J. (1983). Logical form, binding and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 395–420.Google Scholar
  32. Ibanez, A., Aguado, J., Baez, S., Huepe, D., Lopez, V., Ortega, R., et al. (2014). From neural signatures of emotional modulation to social cognition: Individual differences in healthy volunteers and psychiatric participants. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(7), 939–950.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research, 13(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Larson, R., & Luján, M. (1989). Emphatic pronouns. Austin: Ms. SUNY Stony Brook and UT.Google Scholar
  35. Luján, M. (1999). Expresión y Omisión del Pronombre Personal. Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by Bosque, Ignacio y Violeta Demonte. Real Academia Española: Colección Nebrija and Bello. Fundación Ortega y Gasset (pp. 1276–1315). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
  36. Lipski, J. M. (1994). Latin American Spanish. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  37. Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  38. Morales, A. (1997). La hipótesis funcional y la aparición de sujeto no nominal: El español de Puerto Rico. Hispania, 80, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pérez-Leroux, A., & Glass, W. (1999). Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research, 15(2), 220–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reinhart, T. (1983a). Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reinhart, T. (1983b). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(3), 209–231.Google Scholar
  44. Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spinelli, E., Grimault, N., Meunier, F., & Welby, P. (2010). An intonational cue to word segmentation in phonemically identical sequences. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72(3), 775–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Gelormini-Lezama
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Huepe
    • 2
  • Eduar Herrera
    • 3
  • Margherita Melloni
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • Facundo Manes
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • Adolfo M. García
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Agustín Ibáñez
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
    • 7
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias SocialesUniversidad de San AndrésBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Laboratory of Cognitive and Social Neuroscience (LaNCyS)UDP-INECO Foundation Core on Neuroscience (UIFCoN), Diego Portales UniversitySantiagoChile
  3. 3.Universidad Icesi, Departamento de Estudios PsicológicosCaliColombia
  4. 4.Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN)Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience (INCyT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro UniversityBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina
  6. 6.Faculty of Elementary and Special Education (FEEyE)National University of Cuyo (UNCuyo)MendozaArgentina
  7. 7.Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Australian Research Council (ACR)SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations