Language Acquisition Under Challanging Circumstances s2

Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem Binding theory in L1 acquisition

Reading: Ruigendijk, E., Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R. and N. Balaban. In press. Symmetry in comprehension and production of pronouns: A comparison of German and Hebrew

What is binding theory?

 Binding theory is about the referential properties of anaphors (reflexives and reciprocals), pronouns, and full nouns (including proper names).  The binding principles restrict the reference of nouns.

What are the referential properties of the following nouns?

1. John likes himself 2. John likes him 3. He likes John 4. *Himself likes John

5. John thinks that Bill likes him 6. He thinks that Bill likes John 7. John thinks that Bill likes himself

Binding conditions A: anaphors must be bound in their local domain B: pronouns must be free in their local domain C: R-expressions are always free

What is bound?  C-command: A c-command B, if the first node dominating A also dominates B and A does not dominate B.  Bound: B is bound by A if A c-commands B and A & B are co- indexed  Free = not bound

What is the local domain? The minimal clause containing A (in English & Hebrew)

The Tensed-S Condition

8. *John thinks that Mary likes himself 9. John seems to like himself

The binding domain is the minimal finite clause containing A.

1 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem The Specified Subject Condition

10. John wanted to shave himself 11. *John wanted Mary to shave himself

The binding domain is the minimal clause containing a subject and A

12. John saw a picture of himself 13. *John saw Mary’s picture of himself

The binding domain is the minimal NP containing a subject and A

A Local domain (revised): the minimal clause or NP containing A and a subject or tense.

All languages distinguish these three kinds of nouns. The difference across languages is in the local domain (subset principle).

What do children have to learn?

 Which words are pronouns and which are reflexives.  What the local domain is.

What happens in spontaneous speech?

Bloom, P., A. Barss, J. Nicol and L. Conway. 1994. Children knowledge of binding and coreference: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language 70, 53-71

Subjects: 3 children ages 2-3 Method: Analyzing the use of me and myself in the longitudinal samples Findings: Children's spontaneous production is errorless

John hit me, I see myself, *John hit myself, I see me

What happens in comprehension?

Reflexives

a. Do children know the difference between himself and him? b. Do children know what the local domain is?

Solan, L. (1987). Parameter setting and the development of pronouns and reflexives. In T. Roeper and E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (189-210). Dordrecht: Reidel. Subjects: 37 children, ages 4-7. Method: Act-out task

2 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem

Sentences % correct 1. The dog said that the horse hit himself 95% 2. The dog said that the horse hit him 49% 3. The dog told the horse to hit himself 82% 4. The dog told the horse to hit him 36% 8. The dog found the horse’s picture of himself 85% 9. The dog found the horse’s picture of him 1%

11. The dog said that the horse found the picture of himself 86% 12. The dog said that the horse found the picture of him 38% 13. The dog told the horse to find the picture of himself 68% 14. The dog told the horse to find the picture of him 23%

a. Children are more often correct with reflexive than with pronoun. b. Children are more often correct in finite than in nonfinite clauses

What do we learn from the following pairs about the local domain?

18. = 1. The dog said that the horse hit himself 95% 19. = 3. The dog told the horse to hit himself 82%

20. = 7. The dog said that the horse found the picture of himself 86% 21. = 9. The dog told the horse to find the picture of himself 68%

What do the children assume about the local domain? How can they unlearn it?

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(3), 225-295.

Subjects: ~150 children, ages 2;6-7;0. Method: Picture supported yes/no judgment task

3 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem Match condition - an anaphor can be bound in its local domain Mismatch condition - an anaphor must be bound in its local domain

G1 <4 G2 4-5 G3 5-6 G4 6-7

Match Mismatch

Children older than 5 obey principle A. Younger children allow non-local antecedent: Goldilocks = herself

McKee, Cecile. 1992. “A Comparison of Pronouns and Anaphors in Italian and English Acquisition”. Language Acquisition 2: 21-54.

Subjects: Italian speaking children ages 3;7-5;5 Method: Truth Value Judgment Finding: 97% & 94% correct responses on match and mismatch

Subject : English speaking children 2;6-5;3

Findings: (from Guasti, M. T. 2004. Language acquisition: the growth of grammar. p. 287, Table 8.1)

Children as young as 2;6 know principle A. Is it because of the different methodology?

Conclusion: Reflexives are acquired around 3, when children learn that John hit himself ≠ John hit Bill. That is, they learn that himself refers to John.

4 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem Pronouns

Solan 1987 - Violation of principle B until the age of 7

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(3), 225-295.

Subjects: ~150 children, ages 2;6-7;0. Method: Picture supported yes/no judgment task Findings: p.272-273

Children seem to violate principle B even after 6;6

Is this evidence for lack of knowledge of principle B?

If children do not know principle B they should get the same distributed interpretation for 1 and 2:

1. This is Goldilocks; these are the bears (they have ribbons in their hair) Is every bear touching herself? 2. This is Goldilocks; these are the bears (they have ribbons in their hair) Is every bear touching her?

Children obey principle B at the same age that they obey principle A, but violate a pragmatic principle which governs the choice of reference (Reinhart 1983, 1986).

3. That must be John. At least he looks like him.

Thornton 1990 found the same for:

4. I know who touched them.

Why would children override principle B:

 Coreference is possible without coindexing on a pragmatic basis (contrastive stress). Children who are not sensitive to contrastive stress would seem to violate principle B ( McDaniel 1992) Grice’s principles of cooperation (maxim of manner) – use the most precise way to say what you want to say - use him only when you do not mean himself. This is hard for children (Grodzinsky & Reinhart 1993)

What happens in other languages? What happens in Production?

Romance languages

McKee, 1992 - no problem with pronouns in Italian

Baauw, S., Cuetos F., 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. - no problem with pronouns in Spanish

Jakubowicz, C., 1984. On Markedness and Binding Principles, in C. Jones and P. Sells, eds., Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistic Society, Vol. 14, University of Massachusetts, Amherst - no problem in French.

Ruigendijk, E., Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R. and N. Balaban. In press. Symmetry in comprehension and production of pronouns: A comparison of German and Hebrew

Comprehension Subjects: 44 German-speaking children aged 3;3-6;2, and 54 Hebrew-speaking children aged 2;4-6;7 Method: a sentence-picture matching task Findings: No difference between anaphors and pronouns in German. Anaphors are acquired before pronouns in Hebrew (90% at 4 vs. 80% at 6, respectively)

Production Subjects: 44 German-speaking children aged 3;1-6;8, and 60 Hebrew-speaking children aged 2;4-6;7. Method: a sentence elicitation task Finding: