Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:13:37.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control and coreference in early child language*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Jennifer Ryan Hsu ,
Helen Smith Cairns ,
Sarita Eisenberg  and
Gloria Schlisselberg
Jennifer Ryan Hsu*
Affiliation:
The William Pater son College of New Jersey
Helen Smith Cairns
Affiliation:
Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York
Sarita Eisenberg
Affiliation:
The Graduate Center of the City University of New York
Gloria Schlisselberg
Affiliation:
Hofstra University
*
Department of Communication Disorders, the William Paterson College of New Jersey, 300 Pompton Road, Wayne, NJ 07470, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between control and coreference using an act-out task involving 81 children ranging in age from 3;1 to 8;0 and eight adults ranging in age from 30 to 55. The results replicated previous findings in revealing five developmental stages in children's interpretation of PRO, an empty pronominal element. A significant relationship was observed in the patterns of children's interpretation of forwards sentences containing PRO and those containing overt pronouns. However, there was no relationship in the development of restrictions on control and restrictions on coreference.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , October 1989 , pp. 599 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We are grateful to Mrs Lenore Rappaport, Director of the Bayside Kindergarten and Nursery School in Bayside, New York, for granting us permission to interview the children in her school. We are also grateful to the Directors of the Big Apple school in Brooklyn, New York; the Glen Ridge Elementary school in Glen Ridge, New Jersey; and the Montclair Montessori School in Upper Montclair, New Jersey for permitting us to interview children attending their schools. We thank the parents, teachers and children from all of the schools for their cooperation. We are very grateful to Vivian Hsu and Tom Maxfield for developing the computer program used to generate unique sets of randomly ordered experimental sentences for each subject. Additional thanks to Tom for his help in designing our study. We are indebted to Dr Dana McDaniel for her assistance in some of the data collection and her comments on the manuscript. Finally, we would like to thank Dr Louis Hsu for his advice concerning the statistical analyses of our data. All mistakes, of course, are our own.

References

REFERENCES

Borer, H. & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. and Williams, E. (eds), Parameter setting. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Carden, G. (1986). Blocked forwards coreference: theoretical implications of the acquisition data. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. I: Defining the constraints. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chomsky, C. (1969). The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of ‘before’ and ‘after’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10. 266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, L. & Bever, T. (1986). Linguistic intuitions are the result of interactions between perceptual processes and linguistic universals. Cognitive Science 10. 457–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, H. (1981). Children's grammar of complement-subject interpretation. In Tavakolian, S. L. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. (1987). Children's interpretation of pronouns and null NP's. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, Vol. II: Applying the constraints. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. & Benne, D. (1986). Thematic roles, external argument and control of adjuncts: a case of late-acquired knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. & Tavakolian, S. (1982). Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition 8. 389–416.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H. and Grain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development: Vol. 1. Syntax and semantics. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H. and Grain, S. (1984). Acquisition of cognitive compiling. Cognition 17. 85–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, J. R. (1981). The development of structural principles related to complement subject interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York.Google Scholar
Hsu, J. R. & Cairns, H. S. (1985). Interpreting PRO: from strategy to structure. Unpublished manuscript, The William Paterson College, Wayne, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Hsu, J. R. & Cairns, H. S. (1988). When do children avoid backward coreference? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hsu, J. R., Cairns, H. S. & Fiengo, R. W. (1985). The development of grammars underlying children's interpretation of complex sentences. Cognition 20, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingram, D. & Shaw, C. (1981). The comprehension of pronominal reference in children. Unpublished manuscript, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Lust, B. (1981). Constraints on anaphora in child language: a prediction for a universal. In Tavakolian, S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Lust, B. & Clifford, T. (1986). The 3-D study: effects of depth, distance and directionality on children's acquisition of anaphora. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora Vol. I: Defining the constraints. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, B., Loveland, K. & Kornet, R. (1980). The development of anaphora in first language: syntactic and pragmatic constraints. Linguistic Analysis 6. 359–91.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Solan, L., Flynn, S., Cross, C. & Schuetz, E. (1986). A comparison of null and pronoun anaphora in first language acquisition. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. I: Defining the constraints. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. S. & Hsu, J. R. (in preparation). Binding principles and control in children's grammars.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. (1983). On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 421–46.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 605–35.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, J. C. (1983). The acquisition of control in complement sentences: the role of structural and lexical factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Sherman, J. C. (1987). Evidence against a minimal distance principle in first language acquisition of anaphora. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. II: Applying the constraints. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sherman, J. C. & Lust, B. (1986). Syntactic and lexical constraints on the acquisition of control in complement sentences. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. I: Defining the constraints. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1983). Pronominal reference: child language and the theory of grammar. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strohner, H. & Nelson, K. (1974). The young child's development of sentence comprehension: the influence of event probability, non-verbal context, syntactic form, and strategies. Child Development 45. 567–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakolian, S. L. (1977). Structural principles in the acquisition of complex sentences. Amherst: Graduate Student Linguistic Association, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Taylor-Brown, K. (1983). Acquiring restrictions on forwards anaphora: a pilot study. Calgary working papers in linguistics 9. 75–99.Google Scholar