<p> Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem Binding theory in L1 acquisition</p><p>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</p><p>What is binding theory?</p><p> 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.</p><p>What are the referential properties of the following nouns?</p><p>1. John likes himself 2. John likes him 3. He likes John 4. *Himself likes John</p><p>5. John thinks that Bill likes him 6. He thinks that Bill likes John 7. John thinks that Bill likes himself </p><p>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</p><p>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</p><p>What is the local domain? The minimal clause containing A (in English & Hebrew) </p><p>The Tensed-S Condition</p><p>8. *John thinks that Mary likes himself 9. John seems to like himself</p><p>The binding domain is the minimal finite clause containing A.</p><p>1 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem The Specified Subject Condition</p><p>10. John wanted to shave himself 11. *John wanted Mary to shave himself</p><p>The binding domain is the minimal clause containing a subject and A</p><p>12. John saw a picture of himself 13. *John saw Mary’s picture of himself</p><p>The binding domain is the minimal NP containing a subject and A</p><p>A Local domain (revised): the minimal clause or NP containing A and a subject or tense.</p><p>All languages distinguish these three kinds of nouns. The difference across languages is in the local domain (subset principle).</p><p>What do children have to learn?</p><p> Which words are pronouns and which are reflexives.  What the local domain is.</p><p>What happens in spontaneous speech? </p><p>Bloom, P., A. Barss, J. Nicol and L. Conway. 1994. Children knowledge of binding and coreference: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language 70, 53-71</p><p>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 </p><p>John hit me, I see myself, *John hit myself, I see me</p><p>What happens in comprehension? </p><p>Reflexives</p><p> a. Do children know the difference between himself and him? b. Do children know what the local domain is?</p><p>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 </p><p>2 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem</p><p>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%</p><p>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%</p><p> a. Children are more often correct with reflexive than with pronoun. b. Children are more often correct in finite than in nonfinite clauses</p><p>What do we learn from the following pairs about the local domain?</p><p>18. = 1. The dog said that the horse hit himself 95% 19. = 3. The dog told the horse to hit himself 82%</p><p>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%</p><p>What do the children assume about the local domain? How can they unlearn it?</p><p>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.</p><p>Subjects: ~150 children, ages 2;6-7;0. Method: Picture supported yes/no judgment task </p><p>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</p><p>G1 <4 G2 4-5 G3 5-6 G4 6-7</p><p>Match Mismatch</p><p>Children older than 5 obey principle A. Younger children allow non-local antecedent: Goldilocks = herself</p><p>McKee, Cecile. 1992. “A Comparison of Pronouns and Anaphors in Italian and English Acquisition”. Language Acquisition 2: 21-54.</p><p>Subjects: Italian speaking children ages 3;7-5;5 Method: Truth Value Judgment Finding: 97% & 94% correct responses on match and mismatch</p><p>Subject : English speaking children 2;6-5;3</p><p>Findings: (from Guasti, M. T. 2004. Language acquisition: the growth of grammar. p. 287, Table 8.1)</p><p>Children as young as 2;6 know principle A. Is it because of the different methodology? </p><p>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. </p><p>4 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem Pronouns</p><p>Solan 1987 - Violation of principle B until the age of 7</p><p>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.</p><p>Subjects: ~150 children, ages 2;6-7;0. Method: Picture supported yes/no judgment task Findings: p.272-273</p><p>Children seem to violate principle B even after 6;6</p><p>Is this evidence for lack of knowledge of principle B?</p><p>If children do not know principle B they should get the same distributed interpretation for 1 and 2:</p><p>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?</p><p>5 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem</p><p>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).</p><p>3. That must be John. At least he looks like him.</p><p>Thornton 1990 found the same for:</p><p>4. I know who touched them.</p><p>Why would children override principle B:</p><p> 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)</p><p>What happens in other languages? What happens in Production?</p><p>Romance languages </p><p>McKee, 1992 - no problem with pronouns in Italian</p><p>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</p><p>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.</p><p>Ruigendijk, E., Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R. and N. Balaban. In press. Symmetry in comprehension and production of pronouns: A comparison of German and Hebrew</p><p>6 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem</p><p>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)</p><p>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: </p><p>7 Binding in L1 Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem</p><p>8</p>