The pronoun interpretation problem in Romance complex predicates

This article argues that the Pronoun Interpretation Problem in child Romance is limited to syntactic constructions in which clitics are not interpreted as bound variables. Reporting experimental data from an Act Out task administered to Italian children aged 3–6, it is shown that not only Exceptional Case Marking but also causative Faire Par constructions trigger PIP. Based on the syntactic properties of the embedded vPs in these two constructions, I argue that coreference is an option for clitic pronouns in these complex predicates. I propose that the cross-linguistic distribution of the phenomenon in light of these findings supports a unitary pragmatic account of the PIP as evidence for the modularity of binding and coreference. The account defended in this paper holds that children's early difficulty with local coreference resides in the syntax/pragmatic interface, involving mastery of a scalar opposition between pronouns and reflexives which interfaces with the syntactic knowledge of the local domain.

[1]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[2]  Jaume Padilla,et al.  On the Definition of Binding Domains in Spanish: Evidence from Child Language , 1990 .

[3]  E. Reuland Primitives of Binding , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[4]  A. Hestvik LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation , 1992 .

[5]  Paul Elbourne,et al.  On the Acquisition of Principle B , 2005, Linguistic Inquiry.

[6]  S. Crain,et al.  Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures , 2005 .

[7]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions , 1983 .

[8]  T. Reinhart,et al.  The innateness of binding and coreference , 1993 .

[9]  Irene Heim,et al.  Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation: A Reinterpretation of Reinhart's Approach * , 1998 .

[11]  Chien Yu-Chin,et al.  Children's Knowledge of Locality Conditions in Binding as Evidence for the Modularity of Syntax and Pragmatics , 1990 .

[12]  Juan Uriagereka,et al.  A Course in Minimalist Syntax: Foundations and Prospects , 2005 .

[13]  Sergio Baauw Grammatical Features and the Acquisition of Reference: A Comparative Study of Dutch and Spanish , 2002 .

[14]  Raffaella Folli,et al.  Causation, Obligation, and Argument Structure: On the Nature of Little v , 2007, Linguistic Inquiry.

[15]  W. Philip,et al.  The acquisition of pronominal coreference in Spanish and the clitic-pronoun distinction , 1998 .

[16]  Binding and Coreference in Norwegian Child Language , 2000 .

[17]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[18]  F. Cuetos,et al.  The Interpretation of Pronouns in Spanish Language Acquisition and Breakdown: Evidence for the "Principle B Delay" as a Non-Unitary Phenomenon , 2003 .

[19]  R. Thornton,et al.  Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex Wh-questions , 1990 .

[20]  Susi Wurmbrand,et al.  Two types of restructuring—Lexical vs. functional , 2004 .

[21]  Y. Grodzinsky,et al.  Children's Passive: A View from the By-Phrase , 1998, Linguistic Inquiry.

[22]  Hagit Borer,et al.  The Maturation of Syntax , 1987 .

[23]  Colin Phillips,et al.  Equal Treatment for All Antecedents: How Children Succeed with Principle B , 2009, Linguistic Inquiry.

[24]  Cornelia Hamann,et al.  From Syntax to Discourse , 2002 .

[25]  R. Thornton,et al.  Principle B, VP Ellipsis, and Interpretation in Child Grammar , 1999 .

[26]  Sergey Avrutin The structural position of bound variables in Russian , 1994 .

[27]  Ángel J. Gallego Defective C-T in Romance , 2009 .

[28]  K. Wexler Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage , 1998 .

[29]  Ian Roberts,et al.  Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals , 2010 .

[30]  Robert Freidin,et al.  Foundational issues in linguistic theory : essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud , 2008 .

[31]  T. Roeper,et al.  How Pragmatics and Syntax Make Principle B Acquirable , 2010 .

[32]  Anna Maria Di Sciullo,et al.  The Delay of Principle B Effect (DPBE) and its Absence in Some Languages , 2008, Language and speech.

[33]  W. Badecker,et al.  The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  Cecile McKee,et al.  A Comparison of Pronouns and Anaphors in Italian and English Acquisition , 1992 .

[35]  K. Wexler,et al.  Development of Principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and Coreference , 1992 .

[36]  Cornelia Hamann,et al.  Binding and Coreference: Views from Child Language , 2011 .

[37]  S. Levinson Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature , 2001 .

[38]  Denis Delfitto,et al.  On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences , 2002 .

[39]  Noam Chomsky Derivation by phase , 1999 .

[40]  A. Belletti Italian/Romance Clitics: Structure and Derivation , 2010 .

[41]  Rosalind Thornton,et al.  Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics , 1998 .

[42]  Sergey Avrutin,et al.  Distributivity and binding in child grammar , 1994 .

[43]  Sergey Avrutin,et al.  Principle B delays as a processing problem: Evidence from task effects , 2011 .

[44]  Shelia M. Kennison,et al.  Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing☆ , 2003 .

[45]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Anaphora and Attitudes De Se , 1989 .