Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T04:46:34.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When do children avoid backwards coreference?*

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

Abstract

This study investigated the claim that very young children avoid backwards coreference in their interpretation of sentences containing pronouns. Eighty-one children ranging in age from 3;1 to 8;0 and eight adults acted out four types of pronominal sentences. Cross-sectional data and individual response patterns reveal that children initially, prefer internal coreference even when such a response is disallowed for structural reasons. Avoidance of backwards coreference appears to be a late developing phenomenon characteristic of six-year-olds. Adult response patterns, which are manifested by some very young children, emerge as the dominant pattern by age seven.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 339 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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 the following individuals for granting us permission to interview children attending their schools: Mrs Lenore Rappaport, Director of the Bayside Kindergarten and Nursery School in Bayside, New York; the Director of the Big Apple School in Brooklyn, New York; the Director of the Glen Ridge Elementary School in Glen Ridge, New Jersey; and the Director of the Montclair Montessori School in Upper Montclair, New jersey. We appreciate the co-operation of the parents, teachers and children from all of the schools. We thank Vivian Hsu and Dr Tom Maxfield for developing the computer program used to generate unique sets of randomly ordered experimental sentences for each subject; Dr Dana McDaniel for her advice and assistance in some of the data collection; and Dr Louis Hsu for his advice concerning the statistical analyses of our data. All mistakes, of course, are our own.

References

REFERENCES

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, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Grain, S. & McKee, C. (1985). Acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Berman, S., Choe, J., McDonough, J. (eds), Proceedings of the sixteenth North Eastern linguistic society. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Graduate Student Linguistic Association.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. 2. Applying the constraints. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hsu, J. R., Cairns, H. S., Eisenberg, S. & Schlisselberg, G. (1989). Control and coreference in early child language. Journal of Child Language 16, 599–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. (1988). The-comprehension of pronominal reference in children. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 33, 395–407.CrossRefGoogle 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. (1986). Introduction. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. 1. Defining the constraints. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1. Defining the constraints. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Loveland, K. & Kornet, R. (1980). The development of anaphora in first language: syntactic and pragmatic constraints. Linguistics 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. 1. Defining the constraints. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. S. & Hsu, J. R. (1990). Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Aquistion: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 1, 121–38.CrossRefGoogle 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
Solan, L. (1983). Pronominal reference: child language and the theory of grammar. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakolian, S. L. (1977). Structural principles in the acquisition of complex sentences. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Graduate Student Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds), Parameter setting. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar