week 7. the trouble with principle b grs lx 700 language acquisition and linguistic theory

Week 7.Week 7.The Trouble With Principle BThe Trouble With Principle B

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

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 A

A reflexive (A reflexive (herselfherself) must have a (c-) must have a (c-commanding) antecedent in its governing commanding) antecedent in its governing category.category.

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].].

Governing categoryGoverning category ≈ sentence or DP. ≈ sentence or DP.

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Principle BPrinciple B

A pronoun (A pronoun (herher) must ) must not not have a (c-have a (c-commanding) antecedent in its governing commanding) antecedent in its governing category.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 ≈ sentence or DP. ≈ sentence or DP.

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Principle CPrinciple C

A name/r-expression (A name/r-expression (MaryMary) must ) must not not have a (c-commanding) antecedent have a (c-commanding) antecedent at allat all..

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 my He said that Mary believes Sue stole my

pictures of 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 sentence?described by the second sentence?

OrderingOrdering

For adults, Binding Theory is more For adults, Binding Theory is more than just about order. It’s abstract, than just about order. It’s abstract, about structure.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 ate a

sandwich.sandwich.

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


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

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

The principles of Binding Theory are part The principles of Binding Theory are part of Universal Grammar, not learned.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 Binding Do kids take a while to learn Binding Theory (even supposing it is Theory (even supposing it is learnable)?learnable)?

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

C. Chomsky (1969)C. Chomsky (1969) Tested Principle C with kids and proposed Tested Principle C with kids and proposed

that kids go through three stages:that kids go through three 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 race.”He found out that Mickey won the 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 disallowed Is backward pronominalization disallowed

in these kids’ grammars?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 repeat, Lust (1981): When asked to repeat, kids repeated forward 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 there But this doesn’t tell us that there aren’t grammatical principles aren’t grammatical principles governing their use of pronouns governing their use of pronouns and/or reflexives.and/or reflexives.

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

““Preference parameter”?Preference parameter”? Lust in fact elevates this to the status of a Lust in fact elevates this to the status of a

parameterparameter: head-final languages prefer : head-final languages prefer backwards pronominalization, head-initial backwards pronominalization, head-initial languages prefer forwards pronominalization.languages prefer forwards 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 parameter anyway. This is not a good parameter anyway. Languages do not differ in what they allow, Languages do not differ in what they allow, just in how much they just in how much they like like a type of sentence.a type of sentence.

Onset of Binding TheoryOnset of Binding Theory

If Binding Theory is part of UG, not If Binding Theory is part of UG, not learned, we’d expect that kids start out learned, we’d expect that kids start out already knowing it.already knowing 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 evidence of that while kids show early evidence of knowing Principle A, they (appear to) knowing Principle A, they (appear to) consistently consistently failfail to observe Principle to observe Principle B—even up to (and beyond) 6 years B—even up to (and beyond) 6 years old.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 antecedents

for reflexives (Principle A) early onfor reflexives (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 a Tests Principle A (reflexives require a local antecedent) by providing sentences local antecedent) by providing sentences with two possible antecedents (one local, with two possible antecedents (one local, one not). “Simon says” act-out task.one not). “Simon says” act-out task.

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 and Checking the effects of finiteness and gender control on reflexives.gender control on reflexives.

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 to point to

herself.herself.

C&W90: Experiment IIIC&W90: Experiment III

Increased the number of conditions Increased the number of conditions to test for pragmatic strategies and to test for pragmatic strategies and to replicate the results with a to replicate the results with a different task.different task. (Previous task was “Simon (Previous task was “Simon

[Snoopy/Kitty] says…”, this task was [Snoopy/Kitty] says…”, this task was “Party game” which involved giving “Party game” which involved giving objects to people/puppets sitting at a objects to people/puppets sitting at a table).table).

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

Kids from 2.5 to Kids from 2.5 to 6 showed a 6 showed a steady increase steady increase (from about (from about 13% to about 13% to about 90%) in 90%) in requiring requiring herselfherself to take to take a local a local antecedent.antecedent.


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


Kids showed Kids showed nono significant significant development development in requiring in requiring herher to take a to take a non-localnon-local antecedent antecedent (about 75% (about 75% across the across the board)board)


Gender cues for non-local pronoun Gender cues for non-local pronoun brought kids’ performance up to near-brought kids’ performance up to near-perfect. Had little effect on reflexives.perfect. Had little effect on 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 that chance) for Principle A (meaning that they don’t have a systematic they don’t have a systematic non-non-local coreferencelocal coreference principle they are principle they are following—cf. Experiment I result following—cf. Experiment I result showing them at 13% correct)showing them at 13% correct)

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

Kids have to Kids have to learn learn Principle B it takes a Principle B it takes a while.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 sentences

indicate that they’re pronouns).indicate that they’re pronouns). Principle B matures (constraints enforcing Principle B matures (constraints enforcing

coreference before those prohibiting coreference before those prohibiting coreference?)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 aren’t pronouns and reflexives (they aren’t treating them treating them allall as reflexives). as 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 along.and respect Principle B all 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 is between a pronoun and an antecedent is prohibited if the antecedent is too close.prohibited if the antecedent is too close.

Assuming adults obey this, that previous Assuming adults obey this, that previous sentence must have been:sentence must have been: That must be John—or at least heThat must be John—or at least heii lookslooks an an

awful lot like himawful 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 same index, they necessarily share the same referent. referent. Coindexation implies Coindexation implies coreferencecoreference..

If two noun phrases do If two noun phrases do notnot share the share the same index, does this mean they 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 & Wexler The idea behind the Chien & Wexler account of the Principle B “delay” is account of the Principle B “delay” is that that adults adults know the pragmatic know the pragmatic Principle P, but Principle P, but kids kids are unable to are unable to use it right away.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 herself’, meaning ‘Mama Bear is pointing to herself’, what the kid really said waswhat the kid really said was

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

……ok by Principle B, but violating Principle P ok by Principle B, but violating Principle P (by allowing (by allowing ii and and jj both to refer to Mama both to refer to Mama Bear).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 and not that kids don’t obey and not Principle BPrinciple B, given that they both , given that they both seem to allow seem to allow Mama bear is pointing Mama bear is pointing to herto 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 about.Principle P has nothing to say 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 Principle and these are subject to Principle B, but they do not have a fixed B, but they do not have a fixed referent, so accidental coreference referent, so accidental coreference is not an option here.is not an 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 Mama

BearBear))

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

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

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

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IV

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

Every-nameEvery-name Is every bear pointing to Goldilocks?Is every bear pointing to 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 poorly on the mismatch (“no”) mismatch (“no”) condition for condition for everyevery and and allall; they did less poorly ; they did less poorly on the mismatch on the mismatch condition for names.condition for 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)

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

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

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

Over 5, they were at Over 5, they were at 80% correct and above—80% correct and above—in particular, better than in particular, better than on the name-pronoun on the name-pronoun condition; condition; they seem to they seem to know Principle Bknow Principle B..

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

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

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 apply pronouns, and reflexives, they apply Principle B.Principle B.

Where accidental coreference is Where accidental coreference is possible (despite violating Principle possible (despite violating Principle P), kids will allow it about half of the P), kids will allow it about half of the time.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 that distinguish between their knowledge and that of listeners… [c]hildren use pronouns without of listeners… [c]hildren use pronouns without first ensuring that a referent has been first ensuring that a referent has been introduced into the conversational context… introduced into the conversational context… As listeners, children appear to assign As listeners, children appear to assign interpretations to other speakers’ utterances interpretations to other speakers’ utterances that require special contextual support to be that require special contextual support to be felicitous for adults… (pp. 14-15)felicitous for adults… (pp. 14-15)


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

Papa Bear wiped his facePapa Bear wiped his faceand Brother Bear did [and Brother Bear did [wiped his facewiped his face] ] 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 in the elided material.constraint in the elided material.

NPs in the elided and antecedent VP NPs in the elided and antecedent VP mustmust Both be bound variables or both be Both be bound variables or both be

referential pronouns (referential 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 and BB did [wiped PB wiped his face and BB did [wiped his face] too.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 refers in first clause is referential. It refers to GB. to GB. His His in second clause must be in second clause must be referential, and must also refer to GB.referential, and must also refer to GB.

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

Truth value judgment Truth value judgment tasktask

Experimenter 1 tells a story, moves the toys.Experimenter 1 tells a story, moves the toys. Experimenter 2 plays a puppet, who has to Experimenter 2 plays a puppet, who has to

report what’s just happened.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 happened, puppet told the truth about what happened, to either give the puppet a cookie or make it to either give the puppet a cookie or make it do pushups. If the puppet gets it wrong, the do pushups. If the puppet gets it wrong, the puppet asks the kid “What really happened?”puppet asks 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 and Bert and 3 reindeer have a snowball fight and get all covered in snow. They go inside, Bert get all covered in snow. They go inside, Bert asks the reindeer to brush the snow off of him. asks the reindeer to brush the snow off of him. 2 reindeer refuse, and brushing themselves 2 reindeer refuse, and brushing themselves off; the third helped a little, but mainly off; the third helped a little, but mainly concentrates on brushing the snow off himself.concentrates on 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, trolls IH brushed someone else’s hair, trolls brushed their own hair.brushed their own hair.

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

consistently controls structural parallelism).consistently controls structural parallelism).

Testing VP ellipsisTesting VP ellipsis

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

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”.

Testing Principle BTesting Principle B

Everyone is covered with glitter, Everyone is covered with glitter, Batman and 2 turtles refuse to help Batman and 2 turtles refuse to help Smurf out because they are cleaning Smurf out because they are cleaning themselves. One turtle briefly helps themselves. One turtle briefly helps Smurf, but then returns to cleaning Smurf, but then returns to cleaning himself.himself.

Batman cleaned him and every turtle Batman cleaned him and every turtle did too. (No: 86%) √G2did too. (No: 86%) √G2

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

Testing Principle CTesting Principle C

He dusted the skeleton. (No: 92%) He dusted the skeleton. (No: 92%) √G2√G2

The kiwi bird cleaned Flash Gordon The kiwi bird cleaned Flash Gordon and he did too. (No: 46%—and he did too. (No: 46%—adultsadults 83%!) √G183%!) √G1 What’s going on? Stress (even implicit What’s going on? Stress (even implicit

due to the ellipsis)?due to the ellipsis)?


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

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

week 7. the trouble with principle b grs lx 700 language acquisition and linguistic theory

Documents

john saw mary

pictures of john

john stole marys pictures

binding theory principle

johns pictures

namerexpression mary

binding theory principle

c commanding antecedent