Week 5. The Trouble With Principle B GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory.

Week 5.Week 5.The Trouble With The Trouble With

Principle BPrinciple B

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic Linguistic

TheoryTheory

Binding TheoryBinding Theory

Binding TheoryBinding TheoryConstraints on assignment of Constraints on assignment of reference.reference.

Reflexives (Reflexives (himselfhimself, , herselfherself, , themselvesthemselves, …), …)

Pronouns (Pronouns (hehe, , sheshe, , theythey, , himhim, , herher, …), …)

Names (inherent reference)Names (inherent reference)

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Principle APrinciple AA reflexive (A reflexive (herselfherself) must be bound ) must be bound within its governing category.within its governing category. A A bindsbinds B iff B iff

A and B are coindexed, A and B are coindexed, A c-commands B.A c-commands B.

Governing categoryGoverning category ≈ IP or DP. ≈ IP or DP.

Mary saw Mary saw herselfherself in the mirror. in the mirror. Mary said John saw Mary said John saw herselfherself in the window. in the window. John stole [Mary’s pictures of John stole [Mary’s pictures of herselfherself].]. Mary stole [John’s pictures of Mary stole [John’s pictures of herselfherself].].

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Principle BPrinciple BA pronoun (A pronoun (herher) must be free (=) must be free (=not not bound) within its governing category.bound) within its governing category.

Mary saw Mary saw herher in the mirror.in the mirror. Mary said John saw Mary said John saw herher in the window. in the window. John stole [Mary’s pictures of John stole [Mary’s pictures of herher].]. Mary stole [John’s pictures of Mary stole [John’s pictures of herher].].

Governing categoryGoverning category ≈ IP or DP. ≈ IP or DP.

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Principle CPrinciple CA name/r-expression (A name/r-expression (MaryMary) must be ) must be free (altogether).free (altogether).

She saw She saw MaryMary in the mirror.in the mirror. She said John saw She said John saw MaryMary in the window.in the window. Mary stole [his pictures of Mary stole [his pictures of JohnJohn].]. He stole [her pictures of He stole [her pictures of JohnJohn].]. He said that Mary believes Sue stole He said that Mary believes Sue stole my pictures of my pictures of JohnJohn..

ConstraintsConstraints Every bear is washing her face.Every bear is washing her face.

Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face.Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face. Bunch of bears cleaning their own faces.Bunch of bears cleaning their own faces.

Every bear is washing her.Every bear is washing her. Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face.Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face.

Based on what evidence would kids Based on what evidence would kids conclude that the second context is conclude that the second context is not not described by the second described by the second sentence?sentence?

OrderingOrdering

For adults, Binding Theory is For adults, Binding Theory is more than just about order. more than just about order. It’s abstract, about structure.It’s abstract, about structure. He said that He said that MickeyMickey won. won. Mickey said that Mickey said that hehe won. won. Before he went to school, Before he went to school, MickeyMickey ate a sandwich.ate a sandwich.

No c-command, no problem.No c-command, no problem.


The principles of Binding Theory seem The principles of Binding Theory seem to be universal, represented in all to be universal, represented in all languages.languages.

They They prohibitprohibit certain interpretations certain interpretations (that is, are unlearnable from positive (that is, are unlearnable from positive evidence)evidence)

The principles of Binding Theory are The principles of Binding Theory are part of Universal Grammar, not learned.part of Universal Grammar, not learned.


Yet… Experiments seem have shown Yet… Experiments seem have shown that sentences ruled out by Binding that sentences ruled out by Binding Theory seem to be accepted by kids.Theory seem to be accepted by kids.

Do kids take a while to learn Do kids take a while to learn Binding Theory (even supposing it Binding Theory (even supposing it is learnable)?is learnable)?

When do they know it?When do they know it?

C. Chomsky (1969)C. Chomsky (1969) Tested Principle C with kids and Tested Principle C with kids and proposed that kids go through three proposed that kids go through three stages:stages:

Stage 1.Stage 1. Coreference is unconstrained.Coreference is unconstrained.

Stage 2.Stage 2. Linear order strategy for pronominalization Linear order strategy for pronominalization (linear order; antecedent must precede (linear order; antecedent must precede pronoun)pronoun)

Stage 3.Stage 3. Principle C is obeyed.Principle C is obeyed.

C. Chomsky (1969)C. Chomsky (1969)

““He found out that Mickey won the He found out that Mickey won the race.”race.”

““Who found out?”Who found out?” Kid points to someone, maybe Mickey.Kid points to someone, maybe Mickey.

““After he found out, Mickey left.”After he found out, Mickey left.” ““Pluto thinks he knows everything.”Pluto thinks he knows everything.”

Stage 2: Some kids never picked Mickey.Stage 2: Some kids never picked Mickey. Is backward pronominalization Is backward pronominalization disallowed in these kids’ grammars?disallowed in these kids’ grammars?

Linear order strategyLinear order strategy

Do kids go through a stage where Do kids go through a stage where they have a strategy for pronouns they have a strategy for pronouns instead of Binding Theory?instead of Binding Theory?

Lust (1981): When asked to Lust (1981): When asked to repeat, kids repeated forward repeat, kids repeated forward pronominalizations much more pronominalizations much more accurately than redundant (accurately than redundant (namename……namename) sequences or backwards ) sequences or backwards pronominalizations.pronominalizations.

Linear order strategyLinear order strategy

But this doesn’t tell us that But this doesn’t tell us that there aren’t grammatical there aren’t grammatical principles governing their use principles governing their use of pronouns and/or reflexives.of pronouns and/or reflexives.

If it tells us If it tells us anythinganything, it only , it only tells us that, of the tells us that, of the grammatical options, forward grammatical options, forward pronominalization is preferred.pronominalization is preferred.

““Preference parameter”?Preference parameter”? Lust in fact elevates this to the status Lust in fact elevates this to the status of a of a parameterparameter: head-final languages : head-final languages prefer backwards pronominalization, head-prefer backwards pronominalization, head-initial languages prefer forwards initial languages prefer forwards pronominalization.pronominalization.

Lust claimed there was a difference in Lust claimed there was a difference in preference between English and Japanese; preference between English and Japanese; O’Grady failed to replicate the difference O’Grady failed to replicate the difference between English and Korean.between English and Korean.

This is not a good parameterThis is not a good parameter anyway. anyway. Languages do not differ in what they Languages do not differ in what they allow, just in how much they allow, just in how much they like like a type a type of sentence.of sentence.

Truth Value JudgmentTruth Value Judgment

One way we can get a judgment (and not One way we can get a judgment (and not a preference) is with the a preference) is with the truth value truth value judgmentjudgment task. Another advantage to task. Another advantage to the TVJ task is that it is not very the TVJ task is that it is not very cognitively taxing.cognitively taxing.

Something like:Something like: Show the kid a little story.Show the kid a little story. A puppet says “I know what happened… X”.A puppet says “I know what happened… X”. At which point the kid either feeds the At which point the kid either feeds the puppet a cookie or rag, depending on puppet a cookie or rag, depending on whether the puppet told the truth.whether the puppet told the truth.

Crain & McKee (1985)Crain & McKee (1985) Crain & McKee (1985) tried again Crain & McKee (1985) tried again with Principle C, this time with a with Principle C, this time with a TVJ task, and found nothing TVJ task, and found nothing particularly non-adult about kids’ particularly non-adult about kids’ use of Principle C. Not 100-0, but use of Principle C. Not 100-0, but definitely systematic.definitely systematic. When heWhen heii was playing guitar, Pinocchio was playing guitar, Pinocchioii was dancing. was dancing. (73% yes; mean age 4;2)(73% yes; mean age 4;2)

When heWhen heii was playing guitar, Pinocchio was playing guitar, Pinocchiojj was dancing. was dancing. (81% yes)(81% yes)

*He*Heii washes Goofy washes Goofyii. . (88% no)(88% no)

Principle CPrinciple C Results about Principle C have been rather Results about Principle C have been rather all over the map, but probably the all over the map, but probably the appropriate synthesis of what’s out there appropriate synthesis of what’s out there is:is:

Kids know and obey the constraints of Kids know and obey the constraints of Principle C on their interpretations (from Principle C on their interpretations (from 3 or so).3 or so).

Application of this knowledge in an Application of this knowledge in an experimental setting is highly dependent on experimental setting is highly dependent on the demands of the task and the context.the demands of the task and the context.

Onset of Binding Onset of Binding Theory?Theory?

If Binding Theory is part of UG, not If Binding Theory is part of UG, not learned, we’d expect that kids start learned, we’d expect that kids start out already knowing it. out already knowing it. (or maybe it (or maybe it matures, but let’s hold off on that matures, but let’s hold off on that possibility until we need it)possibility until we need it)

CaveatCaveat: Of course, the kids need to : Of course, the kids need to know what is a pronoun and what is a know what is a pronoun and what is a reflexive before they can reflexive before they can useuse Binding Binding Theory.Theory.

HoweverHowever: We expect to find that the : We expect to find that the first available evidence should show first available evidence should show that kids know Binding Theory.that kids know Binding Theory.

Onset of Binding TheoryOnset of Binding Theory

But it doesn’t seem to turn out as But it doesn’t seem to turn out as we’d expect…we’d expect…

Several experiments seem to show Several experiments seem to show that while kids show early that while kids show early evidence of knowing Principle A/C, evidence of knowing Principle A/C, they (appear to) consistently they (appear to) consistently failfail to observe Principle B—even up to to observe Principle B—even up to (and beyond) 6 years old.(and beyond) 6 years old.

Chien & Wexler (1990)Chien & Wexler (1990)

Explored the question of whether Explored the question of whether kids know Principles A and B from kids know Principles A and B from the outset or not.the outset or not.

First three experiments show:First three experiments show: Kids correctly require Kids correctly require locallocal antecedents for reflexives antecedents for reflexives (Principle A) early on(Principle A) early on

Kids are significantly delayed in Kids are significantly delayed in requiring requiring non-localnon-local antecedents for antecedents for pronouns (Principle B).pronouns (Principle B).

C&W90: Experiment IC&W90: Experiment I Tests Principle A (reflexives require Tests Principle A (reflexives require a local antecedent) by providing a local antecedent) by providing sentences with two possible sentences with two possible antecedents (one local, one not). antecedents (one local, one not). “Simon says” act-out task. “Simon says” act-out task. (156 kids, mean (156 kids, mean 4;6)4;6)

KittyKitty says that says that SarahSarah should point to should point to herself.herself.

KittyKitty says that says that SarahSarah should point to her. should point to her. KittyKitty says that Adam should point to her. says that Adam should point to her.

C&W90: Experiment IIC&W90: Experiment II

Checking the effects of finiteness Checking the effects of finiteness (claimed in the literature to matter) (claimed in the literature to matter) and gender control on reflexives. and gender control on reflexives. (142 (142 kids; mean 4;5)kids; mean 4;5)

KittyKitty wants wants SarahSarah to point to herself. to point to herself. KittyKitty wants wants SarahSarah to point to her. to point to her. KittyKitty wants Adam to point to her wants Adam to point to her Snoopy wants Snoopy wants SarahSarah to point to herself. to point to herself.

C&W90: Experiment IIIC&W90: Experiment III

Increased the number of conditions to Increased the number of conditions to test for pragmatic strategies and to test for pragmatic strategies and to replicate the results with a replicate the results with a different task. different task. (174 kids; mean 4;5)(174 kids; mean 4;5)

(Previous task was “Simon [Snoopy/Kitty] (Previous task was “Simon [Snoopy/Kitty] says…”, this task was “Party game” which says…”, this task was “Party game” which involved giving objects to people/puppets involved giving objects to people/puppets sitting at a table. This might, if sitting at a table. This might, if anything, introduce a self-bias, because anything, introduce a self-bias, because it’s fun to get toys. it’s fun to get toys. Kitty says that Kitty says that Sarah should give herself a car.Sarah should give herself a car.).).

C&W90: Experiments I-IIC&W90: Experiments I-II Kids from 2.5 to Kids from 2.5 to 6 showed a steady 6 showed a steady increase (from increase (from about 13% correct about 13% correct to about 90%) in to about 90%) in requiring requiring herselfherself to take a local to take a local antecedent.antecedent. G1=2;6-3;0G1=2;6-3;0 G2=3;0-3;6G2=3;0-3;6 …… G8=6;0-6;6G8=6;0-6;6

C&W90: Experiments I-IIC&W90: Experiments I-II

For some For some reason, kids reason, kids seemed to seemed to perform perform better with better with nonfinite nonfinite verbs verbs (want(want); ); C&W have no C&W have no particular particular explanation.explanation.

C&W90: Appendix IC&W90: Appendix Ireflexivesreflexives

0

20

40

60

80

0 2 4 6 8 102;08

4;09

0

20

40

60

80

0 2 4 6 8 102;08

4;09


Kids showed Kids showed nono significant significant development in development in requiring requiring herher to to take a take a non-localnon-local antecedent (about antecedent (about 75% across the 75% across the board). Most of the board). Most of the errors treated errors treated herher as taking a local as taking a local antecedent.antecedent. Kitty says that Kitty says that Sarah should point Sarah should point to her.to her.

C&W90: Appendix IC&W90: Appendix Ipronounspronouns

0102030405060

0 2 4 6 8 102;08

4;09

0102030405060

0 2 4 6 8 102;08

4;03

5;08


Gender cues for non-local pronoun Gender cues for non-local pronoun brought kids’ performance up to brought kids’ performance up to near-perfect. Had little effect on near-perfect. Had little effect on reflexives.reflexives.

C&W90: Experiment III C&W90: Experiment III resultsresults

Previous results replicated for new Previous results replicated for new task.task.

Young kids did better (operated at Young kids did better (operated at chance) for Principle A (meaning chance) for Principle A (meaning that they don’t have a systematic that they don’t have a systematic non-local coreferencenon-local coreference principle principle they are following—cf. Experiment I they are following—cf. Experiment I result showing them at 13% result showing them at 13% correct). Who knows what it was, correct). Who knows what it was, but it wasn’t grammar.but it wasn’t grammar.

C&W90: Possibilities so C&W90: Possibilities so far…far…

Kids have to Kids have to learn learn Principle B it takes Principle B it takes a while.a while. But how on positive evidence alone?But how on positive evidence alone?

HerHer is harder to learn than is harder to learn than herselfherself.. But kids use pronouns first (But kids use pronouns first (I saw himI saw him sentences indicate that they’re pronouns).sentences indicate that they’re pronouns).

Principle B matures (constraints Principle B matures (constraints enforcing coreference before those enforcing coreference before those prohibiting coreference?)prohibiting coreference?) *UG-constrained maturation*UG-constrained maturation

““Principle B errors” aren’t Principle B Principle B errors” aren’t Principle B problems.problems.


Kids do know the difference between Kids do know the difference between pronouns and reflexives (they pronouns and reflexives (they aren’t treating them aren’t treating them allall as as reflexives).reflexives).

E.g., E.g., I saw himI saw him, , *I saw himself*I saw himself..Kids say sentences like Kids say sentences like I saw himI saw him often enough, but they do seem to often enough, but they do seem to know that reflexives need a local know that reflexives need a local antecedent.antecedent.

So what’s wrongSo what’s wrongwith Principle B?with Principle B?

Chien & Wexler (1990): Nothing is Chien & Wexler (1990): Nothing is wrong with Principle B. Kids know wrong with Principle B. Kids know and respect Principle B all and respect Principle B all along.along.

Consider what adults can do:Consider what adults can do: That must be John—or at least he That must be John—or at least he lookslooks an awful lot like him. an awful lot like him.

So do So do adultsadults violate Principle B? violate Principle B?

CoindexationCoindexation

Principle B says that Principle B says that coindexationcoindexation between a pronoun and an antecedent between a pronoun and an antecedent is prohibited if the antecedent is is prohibited if the antecedent is too close.too close.

Assuming adults obey this, that Assuming adults obey this, that previous sentence must have been:previous sentence must have been: That must be John—or at least heThat must be John—or at least heii lookslooks an awful lot like himan awful lot like himjj..

……where where ii and and jj are are accidentally accidentally coreferent.coreferent.


If two noun phrases share the same If two noun phrases share the same index, they necessarily share the index, they necessarily share the same referent. same referent. Coindexation implies Coindexation implies coreferencecoreference..

If two noun phrases do If two noun phrases do notnot share share the same index, does this mean they the same index, does this mean they can’tcan’t share the same referent? share the same referent? Does Does contraindexation imply non-contraindexation imply non-coreference?coreference?


The idea behind the Chien & The idea behind the Chien & Wexler account of the Principle B Wexler account of the Principle B “delay” is that “delay” is that adults adults know the know the pragmatic Principle P, but pragmatic Principle P, but kids kids are unable to use it right away.are unable to use it right away.

Principle PPrinciple PContraindexed NPs are non-Contraindexed NPs are non-coreferential unless the context coreferential unless the context explicitly forces coreference.explicitly forces coreference.

CoindexationCoindexation So, when a kid agrees that…So, when a kid agrees that…

Mama Bear is pointing to her.Mama Bear is pointing to her.

……meaning ‘Mama Bear is pointing to meaning ‘Mama Bear is pointing to herself’, what the kid really agreed to herself’, what the kid really agreed to waswas

Mama BearMama Bearii is pointing to her is pointing to herjj..

……ok by Principle B, but violating ok by Principle B, but violating Principle P (by allowing Principle P (by allowing ii and and jj both to both to refer to Mama Bear).refer to Mama Bear).

How could we ever tell?How could we ever tell?

But how can we tell if it’s But how can we tell if it’s Principle PPrinciple P that kids don’t obey that kids don’t obey and not and not Principle BPrinciple B, given that , given that they both seem to allow they both seem to allow Mama bear Mama bear is pointing to heris pointing to her ‘… ‘…herselfherself’?’?

AnswerAnswer: Principle B : Principle B alsoalso governs governs the use of bound pronouns, which the use of bound pronouns, which Principle P has nothing to say Principle P has nothing to say about.about.

Bound pronounsBound pronouns

A bound pronoun is like A bound pronoun is like hishis in: in: Every boyEvery boyii is looking for his is looking for hisii keys. keys.

……and these are subject to and these are subject to Principle B, but they do not Principle B, but they do not have a fixed referent, so have a fixed referent, so accidental coreference is not an accidental coreference is not an option here.option here. *Every boy*Every boyii admires him admires himii..

PredictionPrediction

So, if found that kids acceptSo, if found that kids accept Mama bear points to herMama bear points to her ((her her = = Mama BearMama Bear))

……but refused to acceptbut refused to accept Every bearEvery bearii points to her points to herii.. ((her her = each = each bear in turn)bear in turn)

……then kids know Principle B (and what then kids know Principle B (and what they lack is probably Principle P).they lack is probably Principle P).


First three experiments First three experiments established that Principle B established that Principle B appears to be delayed with appears to be delayed with respect to Principle A.respect to Principle A.

Fourth experiment establishes Fourth experiment establishes that kids obey Principle B when that kids obey Principle B when coindexation would be forced by coindexation would be forced by a bound variable interpretation.a bound variable interpretation.

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IV

Principle B (but not Principle Principle B (but not Principle P) applies also to bound P) applies also to bound pronouns—if the kids know pronouns—if the kids know Principle B and not Principle Principle B and not Principle P, we expect to see kids P, we expect to see kids getting getting bound pronouns bound pronouns right right (unlike (unlike referring pronounsreferring pronouns, as , as previous three experiments previous three experiments showed).showed).

C&W90: Experiment IV C&W90: Experiment IV itemsitems

Name-reflexiveName-reflexive Is Mama Bear touching herself?Is Mama Bear touching herself?

Name-pronounName-pronoun Is Mama Bear touching her?Is Mama Bear touching her?

C&W90: Experiment IV C&W90: Experiment IV itemsitems

Quantifier-reflexiveQuantifier-reflexive Is every bear touching herself?Is every bear touching herself?

Quantifier-pronounQuantifier-pronoun Is every bear touching her?Is every bear touching her?

C&W90: Experiment IV C&W90: Experiment IV controlscontrols

Name-nameName-name Is Mama Bear pointing to Is Mama Bear pointing to Goldilocks?Goldilocks?

Every-nameEvery-name Is every bear pointing to Is every bear pointing to Goldilocks?Goldilocks?

All-nameAll-name Are all of the bears pointing to Are all of the bears pointing to Goldilocks?Goldilocks?

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IVcontrol resultscontrol results

Kids under 5 did Kids under 5 did poorly on the mismatch poorly on the mismatch (“no”) condition for (“no”) condition for everyevery and and allall; they ; they did less poorly on the did less poorly on the mismatch condition for mismatch condition for names.names.

Kids under 5 haven’t Kids under 5 haven’t quite mastered quite mastered quantifiers. quantifiers. (So we (So we can’t test Principle B can’t test Principle B with them) with them) (with this (with this task)task) G1=<4(48); G2=4-5(45); G1=<4(48); G2=4-5(45); G3=5-6(44);G4=6-7(40)G3=5-6(44);G4=6-7(40)

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IVreflexive resultsreflexive results

Kids over 5 did near-perfect with respect Kids over 5 did near-perfect with respect to Principle A (name-reflexive and to Principle A (name-reflexive and quantifier-reflexive match/mismatch).quantifier-reflexive match/mismatch).

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IVname-pronounname-pronoun

Kids did badly Kids did badly on the name-on the name-pronoun mismatch pronoun mismatch cases, steadily cases, steadily rising from rising from about 70% wrong about 70% wrong to about 25% to about 25% wrong between 4 wrong between 4 and 7.and 7.

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IVquantifier-pronounquantifier-pronoun

Under 5, kids were Under 5, kids were operating around chance operating around chance (they don’t understand (they don’t understand how quantifiers work how quantifiers work yet)yet)

Over 5, they were at Over 5, they were at 80% correct and above—80% correct and above—in particular, better in particular, better than on the name-than on the name-pronoun condition; pronoun condition; they they seem to know Principle seem to know Principle BB.. (G3 went from 50% to 80%)(G3 went from 50% to 80%)

C&W90: Appendix IC&W90: Appendix IE4: name-pron & quant-E4: name-pron & quant-

pronpron

010203040506070

0 1 2 3 4 5 63;05

5;05

010203040506070

0 1 2 3 4 5 63;05

6;04

Chien & Wexler (1990)Chien & Wexler (1990)overall resultsoverall results

By the time kids understand By the time kids understand quantifiers like quantifiers like everyevery and and allall, , pronouns, and reflexives, they pronouns, and reflexives, they apply Principle B.apply Principle B.

Where accidental coreference is Where accidental coreference is possible (despite violating possible (despite violating Principle P), kids will allow it Principle P), kids will allow it about half of the time.about half of the time.

Thornton & Wexler Thornton & Wexler (1999)(1999)

What pragmatic knowledge do children lack? What pragmatic knowledge do children lack? Broadly speaking, children appear to have Broadly speaking, children appear to have difficulty evaluating other speakers’ difficulty evaluating other speakers’ intentions… As speakers, children fail to intentions… As speakers, children fail to distinguish between their knowledge and distinguish between their knowledge and that of listeners… [c]hildren use pronouns that of listeners… [c]hildren use pronouns without first ensuring that a referent has without first ensuring that a referent has been introduced into the conversational been introduced into the conversational context… As listeners, children appear to context… As listeners, children appear to assign interpretations to other speakers’ assign interpretations to other speakers’ utterances that require special contextual utterances that require special contextual support to be felicitous for adults…support to be felicitous for adults… (pp. (pp. 14-15)14-15)


Replicated Chien & Wexler (1990) and Replicated Chien & Wexler (1990) and also tested VP ellipsis cases—also tested VP ellipsis cases—another case where a pronoun can be another case where a pronoun can be bound bound (and so Principle B can be (and so Principle B can be unambiguously tested)unambiguously tested)..

Papa Bear wiped his facePapa Bear wiped his faceand Brother Bear did [and Brother Bear did [wiped his wiped his faceface] too.] too. HisHis = Papa Bear’s (strict—coreference) = Papa Bear’s (strict—coreference) HisHis = Brother Bear’s (sloppy—bound) = Brother Bear’s (sloppy—bound)

ParallelismParallelism

VP ellipsis is subject to a VP ellipsis is subject to a parallelismparallelism constraint (parallelism between the constraint (parallelism between the overt and elided material). There are overt and elided material). There are actually two parts to parallelism:actually two parts to parallelism:

NPs in the elided and antecedent VP mustNPs in the elided and antecedent VP must Both be bound variablesBoth be bound variables or or both be both be referential pronounsreferential pronouns ( (structural structural parallelismparallelism))

If the pronouns are referential, they must If the pronouns are referential, they must have the same referent (have the same referent (referential referential parallelismparallelism).).

ParallelismParallelism PB wiped his face andPB wiped his face andBB did [wiped his face] too.BB did [wiped his face] too. hishis in the first clause is bound by PB. in the first clause is bound by PB. His His in second must also be bound by the in second must also be bound by the subject, there BB.subject, there BB.

His His in first clause is referential. It in first clause is referential. It refers to GB. refers to GB. His His in second clause must in second clause must be referential, and must also refer to be referential, and must also refer to GB.GB.

Kids are expected to obey structural Kids are expected to obey structural parallelism; parallelism; grammargrammar (not (not pragmaticspragmatics))

Four possible Four possible interpretationsinterpretations

Truth value judgment Truth value judgment tasktask

Experimenter 1 tells a story, moves the Experimenter 1 tells a story, moves the toys.toys.

Experimenter 2 plays a puppet, who has Experimenter 2 plays a puppet, who has to report what’s just happened.to report what’s just happened.

The kid decides, based on whether the The kid decides, based on whether the puppet told the truth about what puppet told the truth about what happened, to either give the puppet a happened, to either give the puppet a cookie or make it do pushups. If the cookie or make it do pushups. If the puppet gets it wrong, the puppet asks puppet gets it wrong, the puppet asks the kid “What really happened?”the kid “What really happened?”

19 kids, 4;0 to 5;119 kids, 4;0 to 5;1

Replicating the basic Replicating the basic resultresult

Bert and 3 reindeer have a snowball fight Bert and 3 reindeer have a snowball fight and get all covered in snow. They go and get all covered in snow. They go inside, Bert asks the reindeer to brush the inside, Bert asks the reindeer to brush the snow off of him. 2 reindeer refuse, and snow off of him. 2 reindeer refuse, and commence brushing themselves off; the third commence brushing themselves off; the third helped a little, but mainly concentrates on helped a little, but mainly concentrates on brushing the snow off himself.brushing the snow off himself.

Every reindeer brushed him.Every reindeer brushed him. (No: 92%) √G2 (No: 92%) √G2 WRH? “Only one of them helped him”WRH? “Only one of them helped him”

Every reindeer brushed himself.Every reindeer brushed himself. (Yes: 88%) (Yes: 88%) √G2√G2 WRH? Other stuff too.WRH? Other stuff too.

Bert brushed him.Bert brushed him. (No: 42%) (group 1: No) (No: 42%) (group 1: No) Brushed hisself? Him? Wiped him? Bert??Brushed hisself? Him? Wiped him? Bert??

Testing VP ellipsisTesting VP ellipsis The caveman kissed the dinosaur and The caveman kissed the dinosaur and Fozzie Bear did too. (Correct: 100%)Fozzie Bear did too. (Correct: 100%)

IH brushed someone else’s hair, IH brushed someone else’s hair, trolls brushed their own hair.trolls brushed their own hair.

The Incredible Hulk brushed his hair The Incredible Hulk brushed his hair and every Troll did too. (Yes[*SP]: and every Troll did too. (Yes[*SP]: 3%) √G23%) √G2 WRH? Only the IH did. (First conjunct WRH? Only the IH did. (First conjunct consistently controls structural consistently controls structural parallelism).parallelism).

Testing VP ellipsisTesting VP ellipsis Lizard man and the ugly guy for some Lizard man and the ugly guy for some reason opt to lift up some other reason opt to lift up some other characters. Lizard man lifts the characters. Lizard man lifts the Smurf, ugly guy lifts Mickey.Smurf, ugly guy lifts Mickey.

The lizard man lifted him and the The lizard man lifted him and the ugly guy did too. (No: 79%)ugly guy did too. (No: 79%) 21% overriding referential parallelism? 21% overriding referential parallelism? Pragmatic? W&T say “probably”.Pragmatic? W&T say “probably”.

Same kids as allow Same kids as allow MB points to her[=MB]MB points to her[=MB]??Well, a subset. Pattern was: every kid Well, a subset. Pattern was: every kid who allowed ref. parallelism violations who allowed ref. parallelism violations alowed MBpth, but not vice-versa.alowed MBpth, but not vice-versa.

Testing Principle BTesting Principle B

Everyone is covered with glitter, Batman Everyone is covered with glitter, Batman and 2 turtles refuse to help Smurf out and 2 turtles refuse to help Smurf out because they are cleaning themselves. because they are cleaning themselves. One turtle briefly helps Smurf, but then One turtle briefly helps Smurf, but then returns to cleaning himself.returns to cleaning himself. Batman cleaned him and every turtle did too. Batman cleaned him and every turtle did too. (No: 86%) (No: 86%)

Batman cleaned himself and every turtle did Batman cleaned himself and every turtle did too. (Yes: 95%)too. (Yes: 95%)

Kids can accept a sloppy reading when Kids can accept a sloppy reading when √Pr.B.√Pr.B.

Testing Principle CTesting Principle C

He dusted the skeleton. (No: He dusted the skeleton. (No: 92%) 92%)

The kiwi bird cleaned Flash The kiwi bird cleaned Flash Gordon and he did too. (No: Gordon and he did too. (No: 54%—54%—adultsadults 83%!) 83%!) What’s going on? Stress (even What’s going on? Stress (even implicit due to the ellipsis)? ?implicit due to the ellipsis)? ?


Conclusions: Kids seem to know Conclusions: Kids seem to know and obey Principle B, Principle and obey Principle B, Principle C, and structural parallelism.C, and structural parallelism.

Kids seem to have more trouble Kids seem to have more trouble with referential parallelism with referential parallelism and the contexts for and the contexts for constructions of “guises”.constructions of “guises”.

Week 5. The Trouble With Principle B GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory.

Documents

Transcript of Week 5. The Trouble With Principle B GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory.