Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem*

ABSTRACT Many comprehension studies have shown that children as late as age 6 ; 6 misinterpret object pronouns as co-referring with the referential subject about half the time. A recent review of earlier experiments testing children's interpretation of object pronouns in sentences with quantified subjects (Elbourne, 2005) also suggests that there is a ‘Pronoun Interpretation Problem’. In contrast, two experiments addressing English children's pronoun production (Bloom, Barss, Nicol & Conway, 1994; de Villiers, Cahillane & Altreuter, 2006) show almost perfect usage. The aim of this study is to verify this asymmetry between pronoun production and pronoun comprehension for Dutch, and to investigate the effects of coherent discourse and topicality on pronoun production and comprehension. Employing a truth-value judgment task and an elicited production task, this study indeed finds such an asymmetry in 83 Dutch children (age range 4 ; 5–6 ; 6). When object pronouns were clearly established as the topic of the target sentence, the Pronoun Interpretation Problem dissolved entirely. These results are compatible with the asymmetrical grammar hypothesis of Hendriks & Spenader (2005/2006) and suggest, contrary to many previous claims, that children are highly proficient at using pragmatic clues in interpretation.

[1]  Annette Karmiloff-Smith,et al.  Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective , 1985 .

[2]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Knowledge and Obedience: The Developmental Status of the Binding Theory , 1990 .

[3]  Scott Weinstein,et al.  Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse , 1995, CL.

[4]  Mary E. Hughes,et al.  Boston University Conference on Language Development , 1979 .

[5]  Jan Koster,et al.  The Acquisition of Bound and Free Anaphora. , 1986 .

[6]  P. Hendriks,et al.  A bidirectional explanation of the pronoun interpretation problem , 2004 .

[7]  David Bamman,et al.  Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development , 2006 .

[8]  Jane Grimsahw Knwoledge and obedience: the developmental status of the binding theory , 1990 .

[9]  Jennifer Spenader,et al.  Using Very Large Parsed Corpora and Judgment Data to Classify Verb Reflexivity , 2007, DAARC.

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

[11]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Learning to reason about speakers' alternatives in sentence comprehension: A computational account , 2007 .

[12]  P. Hendriks,et al.  When Production Precedes Comprehension: An Optimization Approach to the Acquisition of Pronouns , 2006 .

[13]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  Processing or Pragmatics? - Explaining the Coreference Delay. , 2006 .

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

[15]  Luigi Burzio,et al.  Anaphora and Soft Constraints , 1999 .

[16]  Reinhard Blutner,et al.  Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation , 2000, J. Semant..

[17]  Celia Jakubowicz,et al.  On Markedness and Binding Principles , 1984 .

[18]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  The Processing Cost of Reference Set Computation: Acquisition of Stress Shift and Focus , 2004 .

[19]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Age Differences in Adults’ Use of Referring Expressions , 2008, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[20]  Jennifer Spenader,et al.  Proceedings of the ESSLLI\'04 Workshop on Semantic Approaches to Binding Theory , 2004 .

[21]  Dana McDaniel,et al.  Principle B and Contrastive Stress , 1992 .

[22]  Pilar Barbosa,et al.  Is the best good enough? : optimality and competition in syntax , 1998 .

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

[24]  P. Bloom,et al.  CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF BINDING AND COREFERENCE: EVIDENCE FROM SPONTANEOUS SPEECH , 1994 .

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

[26]  Helen de Hoop,et al.  Children's Optimal Interpretations of Indefinite Subjects and Objects , 2006 .

[27]  Mitsuhiko Ota,et al.  Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development , 2003 .

[28]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  Interface Strategies : Optimal and Costly Computations , 2006 .

[29]  Sergey Avrutin,et al.  Reference assignment: Using language breakdown to choose between theoretical approaches , 2006, Brain and Language.

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

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

[32]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[33]  Dana McDaniel,et al.  Binding Principles in the Grammars of Young Children , 1990 .