Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Who is the agent? The influence of pragmatic leads on children's reference assignment in non-obligatory control*

  • VIKKI JANKE (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

Non-obligatory control constructions (NOC) are sentences which contain a non-finite clause with a null subject whose reference is determined pragmatically. Little is known about how children assign reference to these subjects, yet this is important as our current understanding of reference-resolution development is limited to less complex sentences with overt elements, such as pronouns. This study explores how seventy-six children (aged six to eleven) consult pragmatic leads when assigning reference in two examples of NOC. Children undertook three picture-selection tasks, containing no lead, a weak lead, and a strong lead, and their reference choices in the critical sentences were monitored. The novel results pinpoint children's baseline interpretations of the ambiguous sentences and expose an age trend in the degree to which they consult strong pragmatic leads when resolving reference. These trends illustrate how reference assignment in more complex discourse-governed contexts progresses, thereby contributing an important dimension to the pragmatics acquisition literature.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Vikki Janke, Department of English Language & Linguistics, School of European Culture & Languages, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NX. e-mail: v.janke@kent.ac.uk.
Footnotes
Hide All
[*]

Warmest thanks to the staff, children, and parents at Herne CE Junior School, Kent, Wittersham CEP School, East Sussex; St Edwards Catholic Primary School, Sheerness, Kent, and St Peters Primary School, Canterbury, Kent. Thanks also to Donna Mulhall for help with data collection. For useful comments, I am grateful to Laura Bailey and Christina Kim, and also to audiences at the LAGB 2015 and BUCLD 40. For statistical support and advice, my thanks to Gordon Craig. I also gratefully acknowledge three anonymous reviewers' constructive criticisms and suggestions.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Adler A. (2006). Syntax and discourse in the acquisition of adjunct control. Unpublished doctoral thesis, MIT.
Agostinho C., Santos A. & Duarte I. (forthcoming) s. The acquisition of Control in European Portuguese. In Santos A. L. & Gonçalves A. (eds), Complement clauses in Portuguese: adult syntax and acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ariel M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1), 6587.
Ariel M. (2004). Accessibility marking: discourse functions, discourse profiles and processing cues. Discourse Processes 37(2), 9116.
Arnold J. E., Brown-Schmidt S. & Trueswell J. (2007). Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 22, 527–65.
Bresnan J. (1982). Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 343434.
Cohen Sherman J. & Lust B. (1987). Syntactic and lexical constraints on the acquisition of control in complement sentences. In Lust B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Volume I: defining the constraints, 279308. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cohen Sherman J. & Lust B. (1993). Children are in control. Cognition 43, 151.
Deutsch W. & Pechman T. (1982). Social interaction and the development of definite descriptions. Cognition 11, 159–84.
Epley N., Morewedge C. & Keysar B. (2004). Perspective-taking in children and adults: equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40, 760–8.
Erteschik-Shir Nomi (1993). The dynamics of focus structure. Unpublished ms., Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.
Gelman A. & Hill J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models (Analytical Methods for Social Research). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita Y., Marantz A. & O'Neil W.. (eds), Image, language, brain, 95126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goodluck H. (1987). Children's interpretation of pronouns and null NPs: an alternative view. In Lust B.. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Volume I: defining the constraints, 247–69. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Graf E. & Davies C. (2014). The production and comprehension of referring expressions. In Matthews D. (ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition, 161–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Grice P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grundy P. (2000). Doing pragmatics, 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.
Guasti M. (2004). Language acquisition: the growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hornstein N. (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Jaeger T. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 434–46.
Janke V. (2007). Control without PRO. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University College London.
Janke V. (2016). Pragmatic leads and null subjects: when children consult leads and when they do not. In Scott Jennifer & Waughtal Deb (eds), Boston University Conference on Language Development Proceedings Series, 40, 184204. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Janke V. (in press). Discourse effects on older children's interpretations of complement control and temporal adjunct control. Language Acquisition: a journal of developmental linguistics.
Janke V. & Bailey L. (2017). Effects of discourse on control. Journal of Linguistics 53(3), 533–65.
Janke V. & Perovic A. (2016). Advanced syntax and primary pragmatics in children with ASD. In Naigles L. (ed.), Innovative investigations of language in autism (Language and the Human Lifespan series), 141–62. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association/de Gruyter Mouton.
Kawasaki N. (1993). Control and arbitrary interpretation in English. Unpublished dissertation, Amherst, University of Massachusetts.
Landau I. (2000). Elements of Control: structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Landau I. (2013). Control in generative grammar: a research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewis R. & Vasishth S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29, 375419.
Lust B. (1981). Constraint on anaphora in child language: a prediction for a universal. In Tavakolian S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 7496. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lust B. (1987). Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Volume I: defining the constraints. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Neeleman A., Titov E., van de Koot H. & Vermeulen R. (2009). A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In van Craenenbroeck Jeroen (ed.), Alternatives to cartography (Studies in Generative Grammar), 152. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Pyykkönen P., Matthews D. & Järvikivi J. (2010). Verb semantics affects children's pronoun comprehension: evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(1), 115–29.
Quene H. & van den Bergh H. (2008). Examples of mixed effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 413–25.
Reinhart T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27, 5394.
Samek-Lodovici V. (1996). Constraints on subjects: an optimality theoretic analysis. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Rutgers.
SAS for Windows (2011). Version 9,3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N, USA.
Schiffer S. (1972) Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Solan L. (1981). The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Tavakolian S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 5973. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stroup W. (2012). Generalized linear mixed models: modern concepts, methods and applications. UK: CRC Press.
Tavakolian S. L. (1978). Children's comprehension of pronominal subjects and missing subjects in complicated sentences. In Goodluck H. & Solan L. (eds), Papers in the structure and development of child language (UMASS Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4), 145–52. University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Williams E. (1980) Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203238.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Child Language
  • ISSN: 0305-0009
  • EISSN: 1469-7602
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-child-language
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 40 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 187 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 9th August 2017 - 20th February 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.