Binding and Coreference: Views from Child Language

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 41)

Abstract

The chapter reviews work on a central topic in acquisition from the perspective of generative grammar: the Binding principles that dictate how pronouns and reflexives behave. The core issue is the “Pronoun Interpretation Problem (PIP)”: do children actually know Principle B of binding and their knowledge is masked in performance, or is there a real problem with pronoun interpretation that may require integrating syntax and pragmatics? Hamann provides a summary of recent theoretical and empirical work on binding that makes it clear that there is more involved in interpretation of pronouns than the simple binding principles. The cross –linguistic asymmetries are reviewed, since pronominal clitics in Romance languages are found to be better understood than non-clitic pronouns, but not in the case of clitic climbing (ECM) environments. Yet recent results on successful performance of children acquiring German belie any simple account of the PIP. Various theorists have proposed coreference rules that require consideration of pragmatics in one way or another, and the interaction of the principles with discourse antecedents. Others stress the possibility of an underspecification of the features of the pronoun in acquisition. Recent work considering the roles of referentiality and topic-hood is explored.

Keywords

Simple Sentence Scalar Implicature Romance Language Romance Child Open Proposition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Avrutin, S. 1994. Psycholinguistic investigations in the theory of reference. Doctorial diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Avrutin, S. 1999. Development of the syntax-discourse interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Avrutin, S. 2004. Optionality in child and aphasic speech. Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 67–93.Google Scholar
  4. Avrutin, S., and K. Wexler. 1992. Development of Principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition 2: 259–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avrutin, S., and R. Thornton. 1994. Distributivity and binding in child grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 25 (1): 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baauw, S. 2000. Grammatical features and the acquisition of reference. A comparative study of Dutch and Spanish. Doctoral diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Baauw, S. 2002. Grammatical features and the acquisition of reference. A comparative study of Dutch and Spanish’ GLOT International 6, 2/3: 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baauw, S., and F. Cuetos. 2003. The interpretation of pronouns in Spanish language acquisition and breakdown: Evidence for the “Principle B Delay” as a Non-Unitary Phenomenon. Language Acquisition 11: 219–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baauw, S., L. Escobar, and W. Philip. 1997. A delay of Principle B-Effect in Spanish speaking children: The role of lexical feature acquisition. In GALA 1997, ed. A. Sorace, C. Heycock, and R. Shillock, 16–21. Edinburgh: HCRC.Google Scholar
  10. Beghelli, F., and T. Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: the syntax of each and every. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolsci, 71–109. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Belletti, A. 1999. Italian/Romance Clitics: Structure and derivation. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. H. van Riemsdijk, 543–579. Berlin: Mouton – de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bloom, P., A. Barss, J. Nicol, and L. Conway, L. 1994. Children’s knowledge of binding and ­coreference: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language 70: 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borer, H. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  14. Boster, C. T. 1991. Children’s failure to obey Principle B: Syntactic problem or lexical error? Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  15. Burzio, L. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  16. Burzio, L. 1998. Anaphora and soft constraints. In Is the best good enough. Optimality and ­competition in syntax, ed. P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, and D. Pesetsky, 93–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cardinaletti, A., and M. Starke. 1995. The tripartition of pronouns and its acquisition: Principle B puzzles are ambiguity problems. In NELS 25, ed. J. Beckman, 1–12. Philadelphia: University of Pennysylvania.Google Scholar
  18. Cardinaletti, A., and M. Starke. 2000. An overview of the grammar of clitics. In The acquisition of scrambling and cliticization, ed. S. Powers and C. Hamann, 165–186. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Chien, Y.-C., and K. Wexler. 1990. Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as ­evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1: 225–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chierchia, G., S. Crain, M.T. Guasti, A. Gualmini, and L. Meroni. 2001. The acquisition of ­disjunction: evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicature. In Proceedings of BUCLD 25, ed. A. Do, L. Dominguez, and A. Johansen, 157–168. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Conroy, A., E. Takahashi, J. Lidz, and C. Phillips. 2009. Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 446–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coopmans, P., and W. Philip. 2000. Notes on the January experiment. Ms., Utrecht University, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  25. Crain, S., and C. McKee. 1985. Acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In NELS 16, ed. S. Berman, J.W. Choe, and J. McDonough, 94–110. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
  26. Crain, S., and R. Thornton. 1998. Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. De Villiers, J., J. Cahillane, and E. Altreuter. 2006. What can production reveal about principle B? In Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition-North America (GALANA), ed. K.U. Deen, J. Nomura, B. Schulz, and B. Schwartz, 89–100. Honolulu: University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
  28. Delfitto, D. 2002. On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 41–69.Google Scholar
  29. Deutsch, W., C. Koster, and J. Koster. 1986. What can we learn from children’s errors in understanding anaphora? Linguistics 24: 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elbourne, P. 2005. On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Evans, G. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362.Google Scholar
  32. Faltz, L.M. 1985. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  33. Fischer, S. 2004. Optimal binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 481–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grillo, A. 2008. Generalized minimality. Syntactic underspecification in Broca’s aphasia. Doctoral diss., Utrecht, the Netherlands and University of Siena, Sienna, Italy.Google Scholar
  35. Grimshaw, J., and S. Rosen. 1990. Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 187–222.Google Scholar
  36. Grodzinsky, Y., and T. Reinhart. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69–102.Google Scholar
  37. Gualmini, A., and L. Meroni. 2009. Scalar implicatures in child language: Cost and compliance. Presentation at GALA, Lisbon, September 2009.Google Scholar
  38. Gualmini, A., S. Crain, L. Meroni, G. Chierchia, and M.-T. Guasti. 2001. At the semantics/­pragmatics interface in child language. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI. Ithaca: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  39. Hamann, C. 1997. From syntax to discourse. Children’s use of pronominal clitics, null subjects, infinitives and operators. Habilitation thesis, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  40. Hamann, C. 2002. From syntax to discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hamann, C., and E. Ruigendijk. 2009. The German pronoun puzzle. Presentation given at the 2nd NWLK (North West Linguistics Colloquium), Bremen.Google Scholar
  42. Hamann, C., L. Rizzi, and U. Frauenfelder. 1996. The acquisition of subject and object clitics in French. In Generative perspectives on language acquisition, ed. H. Clahsen, 309–334. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Hamann, C., O. Kowalski, and W. Philip. 1997. The French ‘Delay of Principle B’ Effect. In BUCLD 21, ed. E. Hughes, M. Hughes, and A. Greenhill, 205–219. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  44. Heim, I. 1993. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. SfS-Report-07-93. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  45. Heim, I. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. In The Interpretative Tract, ed. U. Sauerland and O. Percus, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 25, 205–246. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.Google Scholar
  46. Heim, I., and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Hendriks, P., and J. Spenader. 2006. When production precedes comprehension: an optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition 13: 319–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hendriks, P., Siekman I., Smits E.-J., and J. Spenader. 2007. Pronouns in competition: Predicting acquisition delays cross-linguistically. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics, vol. 48 (Intersentential Pronominal Reference in Child and Adult Language. Proceedings of the Conference on Intersentential Pronominal Reference in Child and Adult Language), eds. D. Bittner and N. Gagarina, 75–101.Google Scholar
  49. Hestvik, A., and W. Phillip. 1997. Reflexivity, anti-subject orientation and language acquisition. Proceedings of NELS 27: 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hestvik, A., and W. Philip. 1999/2000. Binding and coreference in Norwegian child language. Language Acquisition 8: 171–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Higginbotham, J. 1983. Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 395–420.Google Scholar
  52. Jäger, G. 2002. Some notes on the formal properties of bidirectional optimality theory. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11: 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jakubowicz, C. 1984. On markedness and binding principles. In Proceedings of NELS 14, ed. C. Jones and P. Sells, 154–182. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
  54. Jakubowicz, C. 1989. Linguistic theory and language acquisition facts: Reformulation, maturation or invariance of binding principles. Paper presented at Knowledge and Language, Groningen, May 1989.Google Scholar
  55. Kaufmann, D. 1988. Grammatical and cognitive interactions in the study of children’s knowledge of binding theory and reference relations. Doctoral diss., Temple University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  56. Kayne, R. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kayne, R. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–686.Google Scholar
  58. Levinson, S. 1987. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 23: 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lombardi, L., and J. Sarma. 1989. Against the bound variable hypothesis of the acquisition of Principle B. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  61. Manzini, R., and K. Wexler. 1987. Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 413–444.Google Scholar
  62. Matsuoka, K. 1997. Binding conditions in young children’s grammar: Interpretation of pronouns inside conjoined NPs. Language Acquisition 6: 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McDaniel, D., and T. Maxfield. 1992. Principle B and contrastive stress. Language Acquisition 2: 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McDaniel, D., H. Cairns, and J. Hsu. 1990. Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition 1: 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McKee, C. 1992. A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition 2: 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Noveck, I.A. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Papafragou, A. 2002. Scalar implicatures in language acquisition: Some evidence from Modern Greek. In Proceedings from the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Papafragou, A., and J. Musolino. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 86: 253–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Philip, W., and P. Coopmans. 1996. The role of lexical feature acquisition in the development of pronominal anaphora. In Amsterdam series on child language development, vol. 5, ed. W. Philip and F. Wijnen. Amsterdam: Institute of General Linguistics at the University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  70. Pollard, C., and I. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 261–305.Google Scholar
  71. Postal, P. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  73. Reinhart, T. 2004. Processing or pragmatics? Explaining the coreference delay. In The processing and acquisition of reference, ed. T. Gibson and N. Perlmutter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  75. Reinhart, T., and E. Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 675–720.Google Scholar
  76. Reuland, E. 1994. Commentary: The non-homogeneity of Condition B and related issues. In Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives, Binding, dependencies and learnability, vol. 2, ed. B. Lust, G. Hermon, and J. Kornfilt, 227–246. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  77. Reuland, E. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reuland, E. 2008. Anaphoric dependencies: How are they encoded? Towards a derivation-based typology. Ms., OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  79. Reuland, E. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. Reuland, E., and M. Everaert. 2000. Deconstructing binding. In Contemporary syntactic theory, ed. M. Baltin and C. Collins, 634–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  81. Rizzi, L. 1978. A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In Recent transformational studies in European language, ed. S.J. Keyser, 113–158. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  82. Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  83. Rizzi, L. 1986. On the status of subject clitics in romance. In Studies in romance linguistics, ed. O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-Corvalan, 391–419. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  84. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  85. Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and the left periphery. In Structure and beyond, ed. A. Belletti, 223–251. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Ross, J.R. 1982. Pronoun Deleting Processes in German. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  87. Ruigendijk, E. 2008. Reference assignment in German Preschool Children. In Proceedings of GALA 2007, ed. A. Gavarró and J. Freitas, 370–380. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  88. Ruigendijk, E., N. Friedmann, R. Novogrodsky, and N. Balaban. 2009. Symmetry in comprehension and production of pronouns: A comparison of German and Hebrew. Presented in GALA 2009, Lisbon, Portugal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Doctoral diss., University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  90. Sigurjónsdóttir, S., and P. Coopmans. 1996. The acquisition of anaphoric relations in Dutch. In Amsterdam Series on Child Language Development, ASCLD 5. Amsterdam: Instituut Algemene Taalwetenschap 68.Google Scholar
  91. Sigurjónsdóttir, S., and N. Hyams. 1992. Reflexivization and logophoricity: Evidence from the acquisition of Icelandic. Language Acquisition 2: 359–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Spenader, J., E.-J. Smits, and P. Hendriks. 2009. Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem. Journal of Child Language 36: 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sportiche, D. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the Lexicon, ed. J.J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  94. Szabolcsi, A. 2001. The syntax of scope. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. M. Baltin and C. Collins, 607–633. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Thornton, R. 1990. Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex wh-questions. Doctoral diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  96. Thornton, R., and K. Wexler. 1999. Principle B, VP-ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Thráinsson, H. 1976. Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of NELS, L’Association linguistique de Montreal, Université de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, 225–239.Google Scholar
  98. Utakis, S. 1995. Quantification and definiteness in child grammar. Doctoral diss., CUNY, New York.Google Scholar
  99. Van der Lely, H., and L. Stollwerck. 1997. Binding theory and specifically language impaired children. Cognition 62: 245–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Van Gelderen, E. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns: Person, self, and interpretability. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  101. Varlakosta, S. 2000. Lack of clitic-pronoun distinctions in the acquisition of Principle B in child Greek. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. S.C. Howell, S. Fish, and T. Keith-Lucas, 738–748. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  102. Varlakosto, S., and J. Dullaart. 2001. The acquisition of pronominal reference by Greek-Dutch bilingual children: Evidence for early grammar differentiation and autonomous development in bilingual first language acquisition. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. A.H.-J. Do, L. Dominguez, and A. Johansen, 780–791. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  103. Verbuk, A., and T. Roeper. 2010. How pragmatics and syntax make Principle B acquirable. Language Acquisition 17: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Ward, G. 1983. On Nonreflexive Pronouns in Reflexive Environments. Penn review of Linguistics 7, 12–19.Google Scholar
  105. Wexler, K., and Y-C. Chien. 1985. The development of lexical anaphors and pronouns. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development (PRCLD), Stanford University, 138–149.Google Scholar
  106. William, E. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 101–139.Google Scholar
  107. Zesiger, P., L. Chillier-Zesiger, M. Arabatzi, L. Baranzini, S. Cronel-Ohayon, J. Franck, H.-U. Frauenfelder, C. Hamann, and L. Rizzi. 2010. The acquisition of pronouns by French children. A parallel study of production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics 31: 571–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zribi-Hertz, A. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65: 695–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät III, Institut für Fremdsprachenphilologien, Seminar für Anglistik/AmerikanistikCarl von Ossietzky Universität OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations