Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:39:00.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2017

VIKKI JANKE Open the ORCID record for VIKKI JANKE [Opens in a new window]
VIKKI JANKE*
Affiliation:
University of Kent, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Vikki Janke, Department of English Language & Linguistics, School of European Culture & Languages, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NX. e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , March 2018 , pp. 442 - 478
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

[*]

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.

References

REFERENCES

Adler, A. (2006). Syntax and discourse in the acquisition of adjunct control. Unpublished doctoral thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1), 65–87.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (2004). Accessibility marking: discourse functions, discourse profiles and processing cues. Discourse Processes 37(2), 9–116.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 343–434.Google Scholar
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, 279–308. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Cohen Sherman, J. & Lust, B. (1993). Children are in control. Cognition 43, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, W. & Pechman, T. (1982). Social interaction and the development of definite descriptions. Cognition 11, 159–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1993). The dynamics of focus structure. Unpublished ms., Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.Google Scholar
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models (Analytical Methods for Social Research). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics, 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. (2004). Language acquisition: the growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janke, V. (2007). Control without PRO. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
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, 184–204. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Janke, V. & Bailey, L. (2017). Effects of discourse on control. Journal of Linguistics 53(3), 533–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, N. (1993). Control and arbitrary interpretation in English. Unpublished dissertation, Amherst, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2000). Elements of Control: structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2013). Control in generative grammar: a research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29, 375–419.Google Scholar
Lust, B. (1981). Constraint on anaphora in child language: a prediction for a universal. In Tavakolian, S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 74–96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lust, B. (1987). Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Volume I: defining the constraints. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
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), 1–52. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27, 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. (1996). Constraints on subjects: an optimality theoretic analysis. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Rutgers.Google Scholar
SAS for Windows (2011). Version 9,3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N, USA.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (1972) Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1981). The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Tavakolian, S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 59–73. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stroup, W. (2012). Generalized linear mixed models: modern concepts, methods and applications. UK: CRC Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1980) Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.Google Scholar