Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-jtg5s Total loading time: 0.167 Render date: 2021-09-19T08:46:13.253Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Two-year-olds but not younger children comprehend it in ambiguous contexts: Evidence from preferential looking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2016

BARBORA SKARABELA*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, UK
MITSUHIKO OTA
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, UK
*Corresponding
Address for correspondence: Barbora Skarabela, University of Edinburgh – Linguistics and English Language, Dugald Stewart Building, 3 Charles Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AD, United Kingdom. e-mail: barbora@ling.ed.ac.uk

Abstract

Children use pronouns in their speech from the earliest word combinations. Yet, it is not clear from these early utterances whether they understand that pronouns are used as substitutes for nouns and entities in the discourse. The aim of this study was to examine whether young children understand the anaphoric function of pronouns, focusing on the interpretation of the pronoun it in English-speaking children at 1;6 and 2;0. We tested whether adults and children would prefer to look at a previously introduced vs. novel visual object depending on the argument form (it, the + noun, a + noun , or silence). Results demonstrate that, like adults, two-year-olds understand that it refers to a previously introduced referent. There is no evidence that this knowledge is established in children at 1;6. This suggests that some time between 1;6 and 2;0 children come to understand that it refers to a highly accessible referent introduced in the prior context.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

References

Allen, S., Hughes, M. & Skarabela, B. (2015). The role of cognitive accessibility in children's referential choice. In Serratrice, L. & Allen, S. E. M. (eds), The acquisition of reference (pp. 123153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angiolillo, C. J. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1982). Experimental evidence for agent–patient categories in child language. Journal of Child Language 9, 627–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: the role of accessibility. Language and Linguistic Compass 4, 187203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, H. (1979). Early lexical development: comprehension and production. Journal of Child Language 6, 183200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, C., Paulus, M. & Fikkert, P. (2012). Preschoolers’ comprehension of pronouns and reflexives: the impact of the task. Journal of Child Language 39 777803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 491504.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Oxford: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budwig, N. (1999). Language and the construction of self. In Budwig, N., Užgiris, I. & Wertsch, J. (eds), Communication: an arena of development (pp. 195214). Stamford, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. L., Brooks, P. & Tomasello, M. (2000). Factors affecting young children's use of pronouns as referring expressions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43, 1337–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiat, S. (1986). Personal pronouns. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition (pp. 339355). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chondrogianni, V. (2015). Production and comprehension of pronouns and reflexives in atypical populations. In Serratrice, L. & Allen, S. E. M. (eds), The acquisition of reference (pp. 285309). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (1997). Discourse motivations for referential choice in Korean acquisition. In Sohn, H.-M. & Haig, J. (eds), Japanese/Korean linguistics VI (pp. 639659). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2003). First language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dale, P. & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development norms for young children. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 28, 125–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demir, Ö., So, W. C., Özyürek, A. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Turkish- and English-speaking children display sensitivity to perceptual context in the referring expressions they produce in speech and gesture. Language and Cognitive Processes 27, 844–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Zangl, R., Portillo, A. L. & Marchman, V. A. (2008). Looking while listening: using eye movements to monitor spoken language. In Sekerina, I. A., Fernández, E. M. & Clahsen, H. (eds), Developmental psycholinguistics: on-line methods in children's language processing (pp. 113132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. (1991). The metrical basis for children's subjectless sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 30, 431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, P. & Koster, C. (2010). Production/comprehension asymmetries in language acquisition. Lingua 120, 1887–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, E. (2013). Language development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google ScholarPubMed
Huang, C. (2011). Referential choice in Mandarin child language: a discourse–pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 2057–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, M. E. & Allen, S. E. M. (2013). The effect of individual discourse–pragmatic features on referential choice in child English. Journal of Pragmatics 56, 1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. (1974). The origins of language comprehension. In Solso, R. L. (ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology: the Loyola Symposium (pp. 331368). Potomac: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1981). A functional approach to child language: a study of determiners and reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. & Becker, M. (2007). Which it is it? The acquisition of referential and expletive it . Journal of Child Language 34, 571–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E. V. M., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 403–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozendaal, M. I. & Baker, A. E. (2008). A cross-linguistic investigation of the acquisition of the pragmatics of indefinite and definite reference in two-year-olds. Journal of Child Language 35, 773807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozendaal, M. I. & Baker, A. E. (2010). The acquisition of reference: pragmatic aspects and the influence of language input. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 1866–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar Orvig, A., Marcos, H., Morgenstern, A., Hassan, R., Leber-Marin, J. & Parès, J. (2010). Dialogical beginnings of anaphora: the use of third person pronouns before the age of 3. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 1842–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar Orvig, A. & Morgenstern, A. (2015). Acquisition and use of pronouns in a dialogic perspective. In Serratrice, L. & Allen, S. E. M. (eds), The acquisition of reference (pp. 155180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekerina, I. A. (2015). Online evidence for children's interpretation of personal pronouns. In Serratrice, L. & Allen, S. E. M. (eds), The acquisition of reference (pp. 213239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serratrice, L. (2005). The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian. Applied Psycholinguistics 26, 437–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skarabela, B. (2007). Signs of early social cognition in children's syntax: the case of joint attention in argument realization in child Inuktitut. Lingua 117, 1837–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skarabela, B., Allen, S. E. M. & Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2013). Joint attention helps explain why children omit new referents. Journal of Pragmatics 56, 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, H. & Fisher, C. (2005). Who's ‘she’? Discourse structure influences preschoolers’ pronoun interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 52, 2957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, H. & Fisher, C. (2007). Discourse prominence effects on 2·5-year-old children's interpretation of pronouns. Lingua 117, 1959–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittek, A. & Tomasello, M. (2005). Young children's sensitivity to listener knowledge and perceptual context in choosing referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics 26, 541–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Two-year-olds but not younger children comprehend it in ambiguous contexts: Evidence from preferential looking
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Two-year-olds but not younger children comprehend it in ambiguous contexts: Evidence from preferential looking
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Two-year-olds but not younger children comprehend it in ambiguous contexts: Evidence from preferential looking
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *