Week 6.Week 6.The Trouble With Principle BThe Trouble With Principle B

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Binding TheoryBinding Theory

Constraints on assignment of Constraints on assignment of reference.reference.

Reflexives (Reflexives (himselfhimself, , herselfherself, , themselvesthemselves, …), …)

Pronouns (Pronouns (hehe, , sheshe, , theythey, , himhim, , herher, …), …) Names (inherent reference)Names (inherent reference)

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Principle APrinciple A

A reflexive (A reflexive (herselfherself) must be bound within its ) must be bound within its governing category.governing category. A A bindsbinds B iff B iff

A and B are coindexed, A and B are coindexed, A c-commands B.A c-commands B.

Governing categoryGoverning category ≈ IP or DP. ≈ IP or DP.

Mary saw Mary saw herselfherself in the mirror. in the mirror. Mary said John saw Mary said John saw herselfherself in the window. in the window. John stole [Mary’s pictures of John stole [Mary’s pictures of herselfherself].]. Mary stole [John’s pictures of Mary stole [John’s pictures of herselfherself].].

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Principle BPrinciple B

A pronoun (A pronoun (herher) must be free (=) must be free (=not not bound) bound) within its governing category.within its governing category.

Mary saw Mary saw herher in the mirror.in the mirror. Mary said John saw Mary said John saw herher in the window. in the window. John stole [Mary’s pictures of John stole [Mary’s pictures of herher].]. Mary stole [John’s pictures of Mary stole [John’s pictures of herher].].

Governing categoryGoverning category ≈ IP or DP. ≈ IP or DP.

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Principle CPrinciple C

A name/r-expression (A name/r-expression (MaryMary) must be free ) must be free (altogether).(altogether).

She saw She saw MaryMary in the mirror.in the mirror. She said John saw She said John saw MaryMary in the window.in the window. Mary stole [his pictures of Mary stole [his pictures of JohnJohn].]. He stole [her pictures of He stole [her pictures of JohnJohn].]. He said that Mary believes Sue stole my He said that Mary believes Sue stole my

pictures of pictures of JohnJohn..

ConstraintsConstraints Every bear is washing her face.Every bear is washing her face.

Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face.Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face. Bunch of bears cleaning their own faces.Bunch of bears cleaning their own faces.

Every bear is washing her.Every bear is washing her. Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face.Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face.

Based on what evidence would kids Based on what evidence would kids conclude that the second context is conclude that the second context is not not described by the second sentence?described by the second sentence?

OrderingOrdering For adults, Binding Theory is more For adults, Binding Theory is more

than just about order. It’s abstract, than just about order. It’s abstract, about structure.about structure. He said that He said that MickeyMickey won. won. Mickey said that Mickey said that hehe won. won. Before he went to school, Before he went to school, MickeyMickey ate a ate a

sandwich.sandwich.

No c-command, no problem.No c-command, no problem.

Binding TheoryBinding Theory The principles of Binding Theory seem to The principles of Binding Theory seem to

be universal, represented in all languages.be universal, represented in all languages.

They They prohibitprohibit certain interpretations (that certain interpretations (that is, are unlearnable from positive evidence)is, are unlearnable from positive evidence)

The principles of Binding Theory are part The principles of Binding Theory are part of Universal Grammar, not learned.of Universal Grammar, not learned.

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Yet… Experiments seem have shown Yet… Experiments seem have shown

that sentences ruled out by Binding that sentences ruled out by Binding Theory seem to be accepted by kids.Theory seem to be accepted by kids.

Do kids take a while to learn Binding Do kids take a while to learn Binding Theory (even supposing it is learnable)?Theory (even supposing it is learnable)?

When do they know it?When do they know it?

C. Chomsky (1969)C. Chomsky (1969) Tested Principle C with kids and proposed Tested Principle C with kids and proposed

that kids go through three stages:that kids go through three stages:

Stage 1.Stage 1. Coreference is unconstrained.Coreference is unconstrained.

Stage 2.Stage 2. Linear order strategy for pronominalization Linear order strategy for pronominalization

(linear order; antecedent must precede (linear order; antecedent must precede pronoun)pronoun)

Stage 3.Stage 3. Principle C is obeyed.Principle C is obeyed.

C. Chomsky (1969)C. Chomsky (1969) ““He found out that Mickey won the race.”He found out that Mickey won the race.” ““Who found out?”Who found out?”

Kid points to someone, maybe Mickey.Kid points to someone, maybe Mickey. ““After he found out, Mickey left.”After he found out, Mickey left.” ““Pluto thinks he knows everything.”Pluto thinks he knows everything.”

Stage 2: Some kids never picked Mickey.Stage 2: Some kids never picked Mickey. Is backward pronominalization disallowed Is backward pronominalization disallowed

in these kids’ grammars?in these kids’ grammars?

Linear order strategyLinear order strategy Do kids go through a stage where they Do kids go through a stage where they

have a strategy for pronouns instead of have a strategy for pronouns instead of Binding Theory?Binding Theory?

Lust (1981): When asked to repeat, Lust (1981): When asked to repeat, kids repeated forward kids repeated forward pronominalizations much more pronominalizations much more accurately than redundant (accurately than redundant (namename……namename) sequences or backwards ) sequences or backwards pronominalizations.pronominalizations.

Linear order strategyLinear order strategy But this doesn’t tell us that there But this doesn’t tell us that there

aren’t grammatical principles aren’t grammatical principles governing their use of pronouns and/or governing their use of pronouns and/or reflexives.reflexives.

If it tells us If it tells us anythinganything, it only tells us , it only tells us that, of the grammatical options, that, of the grammatical options, forward pronominalization is forward pronominalization is preferred.preferred.

““Preference parameter”?Preference parameter”? Lust in fact elevates this to the status of a Lust in fact elevates this to the status of a

parameterparameter: head-final languages prefer : head-final languages prefer backwards pronominalization, head-initial backwards pronominalization, head-initial languages prefer forwards pronominalization.languages prefer forwards pronominalization.

Lust claimed there was a difference in Lust claimed there was a difference in preference between English and Japanese; preference between English and Japanese; O’Grady failed to replicate the difference O’Grady failed to replicate the difference between English and Korean.between English and Korean.

This is not a good parameterThis is not a good parameter anyway. anyway. Languages do not differ in what they allow, Languages do not differ in what they allow, just in how much they just in how much they like like a type of sentence.a type of sentence.

Truth Value JudgmentTruth Value Judgment One way we can get a judgment (and not a One way we can get a judgment (and not a

preference) is with the preference) is with the truth value judgmenttruth value judgment task. Another advantage to the TVJ task is task. Another advantage to the TVJ task is that it is not very cognitively taxing.that it is not very cognitively taxing.

Something like:Something like: Show the kid a little story.Show the kid a little story. A puppet says “I know what happened… X”.A puppet says “I know what happened… X”. At which point the kid either feeds the puppet a At which point the kid either feeds the puppet a

cookie or rag, depending on whether the puppet cookie or rag, depending on whether the puppet told the truth.told the truth.

Crain & McKee (1985)Crain & McKee (1985) Crain & McKee (1985) tried again with Crain & McKee (1985) tried again with

Principle C, this time with a TVJ task, Principle C, this time with a TVJ task, and found nothing particularly non-and found nothing particularly non-adult about kids use of Principle C. Not adult about kids use of Principle C. Not 100-0, but definitely systematic.100-0, but definitely systematic. When heWhen heii was playing guitar, Pinocchio was playing guitar, Pinocchioii

was dancing. was dancing. (73% yes; mean age 4;2)(73% yes; mean age 4;2) When heWhen heii was playing guitar, Pinocchio was playing guitar, Pinocchiojj

was dancing. was dancing. (81% yes)(81% yes) *He*Heii washes Goofy washes Goofyii. . (88% no)(88% no)

Principle CPrinciple C Results about Principle C have been rather Results about Principle C have been rather

all over the map, but probably the all over the map, but probably the appropriate synthesis of what’s out there is:appropriate synthesis of what’s out there is:

Kids know and obey the constraints of Kids know and obey the constraints of Principle C on their interpretations (from 3 Principle C on their interpretations (from 3 or so).or so).

Application of this knowledge in an Application of this knowledge in an experimental setting is highly dependent on experimental setting is highly dependent on the demands of the task and the context.the demands of the task and the context.

Onset of Binding Theory?Onset of Binding Theory?

If Binding Theory is part of UG, not If Binding Theory is part of UG, not learned, we’d expect that kids start out learned, we’d expect that kids start out already knowing it. already knowing it. (or maybe it (or maybe it matures, but let’s hold off on that matures, but let’s hold off on that possibility until we need it)possibility until we need it)

CaveatCaveat: Of course, the kids need to know : Of course, the kids need to know what is a pronoun and what is a reflexive what is a pronoun and what is a reflexive before they can before they can useuse Binding Theory. Binding Theory.

HoweverHowever: We expect to find that the first : We expect to find that the first available evidence should show that kids available evidence should show that kids know Binding Theory.know Binding Theory.

Onset of Binding TheoryOnset of Binding Theory But it doesn’t seem to turn out as we’d But it doesn’t seem to turn out as we’d

expect…expect…

Several experiments seem to show that Several experiments seem to show that while kids show early evidence of while kids show early evidence of knowing Principle A/C, they (appear knowing Principle A/C, they (appear to) consistently to) consistently failfail to observe to observe Principle B—even up to (and beyond) 6 Principle B—even up to (and beyond) 6 years old.years old.

Chien & Wexler (1990)Chien & Wexler (1990) Explored the question of whether Explored the question of whether

kids know Principles A and B from kids know Principles A and B from the outset or not.the outset or not.

First three experiments show:First three experiments show: Kids correctly require Kids correctly require locallocal antecedents antecedents

for reflexives (Principle A) early onfor reflexives (Principle A) early on Kids are significantly delayed in Kids are significantly delayed in

requiring requiring non-localnon-local antecedents for antecedents for pronouns (Principle B).pronouns (Principle B).

C&W90: Experiment IC&W90: Experiment I Tests Principle A (reflexives require a Tests Principle A (reflexives require a

local antecedent) by providing local antecedent) by providing sentences with two possible sentences with two possible antecedents (one local, one not). “Simon antecedents (one local, one not). “Simon says” act-out task. says” act-out task. (156 kids, mean 4;6)(156 kids, mean 4;6)

KittyKitty says that says that SarahSarah should point to should point to herself.herself.

KittyKitty says that says that SarahSarah should point to her. should point to her. KittyKitty says that Adam should point to her. says that Adam should point to her.

C&W90: Experiment IIC&W90: Experiment II Checking the effects of finiteness Checking the effects of finiteness

(claimed in the literature to matter) and (claimed in the literature to matter) and gender control on reflexives. gender control on reflexives. (142 kids; (142 kids; mean 4;5)mean 4;5)

KittyKitty wants wants SarahSarah to point to herself. to point to herself. KittyKitty wants wants SarahSarah to point to her. to point to her. KittyKitty wants Adam to point to her wants Adam to point to her Snoopy wants Snoopy wants SarahSarah to point to herself. to point to herself.

C&W90: Experiment IIIC&W90: Experiment III Increased the number of conditions to test Increased the number of conditions to test

for pragmatic strategies and to replicate for pragmatic strategies and to replicate the results with a different task. the results with a different task. (174 kids; (174 kids; mean 4;5)mean 4;5) (Previous task was “Simon [Snoopy/Kitty] (Previous task was “Simon [Snoopy/Kitty]

says…”, this task was “Party game” which says…”, this task was “Party game” which involved giving objects to people/puppets involved giving objects to people/puppets sitting at a table. This might, if anything, sitting at a table. This might, if anything, introduce a self-bias, because it’s fun to get introduce a self-bias, because it’s fun to get toys. toys. Kitty says that Sarah should give herself Kitty says that Sarah should give herself a car.a car.).).

C&W90: Experiments I-IIC&W90: Experiments I-II Kids from 2.5 to 6 Kids from 2.5 to 6

showed a steady showed a steady increase (from increase (from about 13% about 13% correct to about correct to about 90%) in requiring 90%) in requiring herselfherself to take a to take a local antecedent.local antecedent. G1=2;6-3;0G1=2;6-3;0 G2=3;0-3;6G2=3;0-3;6 …… G8=6;0-6;6G8=6;0-6;6

C&W90: Experiments I-IIC&W90: Experiments I-II For some For some

reason, kids reason, kids seemed to seemed to perform better perform better with nonfinite with nonfinite verbs verbs (want(want); ); C&W have no C&W have no particular particular explanation.explanation.

C&W90: Appendix IC&W90: Appendix Ireflexivesreflexives

0

20

40

60

80

0 2 4 6 8 102;08

4;090

20

40

60

80

0 2 4 6 8 102;08

4;09

C&W90: Experiments I-IIC&W90: Experiments I-II Kids showed Kids showed nono

significant significant development in development in requiring requiring herher to take to take a a non-localnon-local antecedent (about antecedent (about 75% across the 75% across the board). Most of the board). Most of the errors treated errors treated herher as as taking a local taking a local antecedent.antecedent. Kitty says that Sarah Kitty says that Sarah

should point to her.should point to her.

C&W90: Appendix IC&W90: Appendix Ipronounspronouns

0102030405060

0 2 4 6 8 102;08

4;09

0102030405060

0 2 4 6 8 102;08

4;035;08

C&W90: Experiments I-IIC&W90: Experiments I-II Gender cues for non-local pronoun Gender cues for non-local pronoun

brought kids’ performance up to near-brought kids’ performance up to near-perfect. Had little effect on reflexives.perfect. Had little effect on reflexives.

C&W90: Experiment III C&W90: Experiment III resultsresults

Previous results replicated for new Previous results replicated for new task.task.

Young kids did better (operated at Young kids did better (operated at chance) for Principle A (meaning that chance) for Principle A (meaning that they don’t have a systematic they don’t have a systematic non-local non-local coreferencecoreference principle they are following principle they are following—cf. Experiment I result showing them —cf. Experiment I result showing them at 13% correct). Who knows what it at 13% correct). Who knows what it was, but it wasn’t grammar.was, but it wasn’t grammar.

C&W90: Possibilities so C&W90: Possibilities so far…far…

Kids have to Kids have to learn learn Principle B it takes a while.Principle B it takes a while. But how on positive evidence alone?But how on positive evidence alone?

HerHer is harder to learn than is harder to learn than herselfherself.. But kids use pronouns first (But kids use pronouns first (I saw himI saw him sentences sentences

indicate that they’re pronouns).indicate that they’re pronouns). Principle B matures (constraints enforcing Principle B matures (constraints enforcing

coreference before those prohibiting coreference before those prohibiting coreference?)coreference?) *UG-constrained maturation*UG-constrained maturation

““Principle B errors” aren’t Principle B Principle B errors” aren’t Principle B problems.problems.

Chien & Wexler (1990)Chien & Wexler (1990) Kids do know the difference between Kids do know the difference between

pronouns and reflexives (they aren’t pronouns and reflexives (they aren’t treating them treating them allall as reflexives). as reflexives).

E.g., E.g., I saw himI saw him, , *I saw himself*I saw himself..Kids say sentences like Kids say sentences like I saw himI saw him often often enough, but they do seem to know that enough, but they do seem to know that reflexives need a local antecedent.reflexives need a local antecedent.

So what’s wrongSo what’s wrongwith Principle B?with Principle B?

Chien & Wexler (1990): Nothing is Chien & Wexler (1990): Nothing is wrong with Principle B. Kids know wrong with Principle B. Kids know and respect Principle B all along.and respect Principle B all along.

Consider what adults can do:Consider what adults can do: That must be John—or at least he That must be John—or at least he lookslooks

an awful lot like him.an awful lot like him. So do So do adultsadults violate Principle B? violate Principle B?

CoindexationCoindexation Principle B says that Principle B says that coindexationcoindexation

between a pronoun and an antecedent is between a pronoun and an antecedent is prohibited if the antecedent is too close.prohibited if the antecedent is too close.

Assuming adults obey this, that previous Assuming adults obey this, that previous sentence must have been:sentence must have been: That must be John—or at least heThat must be John—or at least heii lookslooks an an

awful lot like himawful lot like himjj.. ……where where ii and and jj are are accidentally accidentally

coreferent.coreferent.

CoindexationCoindexation If two noun phrases share the same If two noun phrases share the same

index, they necessarily share the same index, they necessarily share the same referent. referent. Coindexation implies Coindexation implies coreferencecoreference..

If two noun phrases do If two noun phrases do notnot share the share the same index, does this mean they same index, does this mean they can’tcan’t share the same referent? share the same referent? Does Does contraindexation imply non-coreference?contraindexation imply non-coreference?

CoindexationCoindexation The idea behind the Chien & Wexler The idea behind the Chien & Wexler

account of the Principle B “delay” is account of the Principle B “delay” is that that adults adults know the pragmatic know the pragmatic Principle P, but Principle P, but kids kids are unable to use are unable to use it right away.it right away.

Principle PPrinciple PContraindexed NPs are non-Contraindexed NPs are non-coreferential unless the context coreferential unless the context explicitly forces coreference.explicitly forces coreference.

CoindexationCoindexation So, when a kid agrees that…So, when a kid agrees that…

Mama Bear is pointing to her.Mama Bear is pointing to her.

……meaning ‘Mama Bear is pointing to herself’, meaning ‘Mama Bear is pointing to herself’, what the kid really agreed to waswhat the kid really agreed to was

Mama BearMama Bearii is pointing to her is pointing to herjj..

……ok by Principle B, but violating Principle P ok by Principle B, but violating Principle P (by allowing (by allowing ii and and jj both to refer to Mama both to refer to Mama Bear).Bear).

How could we ever tell?How could we ever tell? But how can we tell if it’s But how can we tell if it’s Principle PPrinciple P

that kids don’t obey and not that kids don’t obey and not Principle Principle BB, given that they both seem to allow , given that they both seem to allow Mama bear is pointing to herMama bear is pointing to her ‘… ‘…herselfherself’?’?

AnswerAnswer: Principle B : Principle B alsoalso governs the governs the use of bound pronouns, which use of bound pronouns, which Principle P has nothing to say about.Principle P has nothing to say about.

Bound pronounsBound pronouns A bound pronoun is like A bound pronoun is like hishis in: in:

Every boyEvery boyii is looking for his is looking for hisii keys. keys.

……and these are subject to Principle and these are subject to Principle B, but they do not have a fixed B, but they do not have a fixed referent, so accidental coreference referent, so accidental coreference is not an option here.is not an option here. *Every boy*Every boyii admires him admires himii..

PredictionPrediction So, if found that kids acceptSo, if found that kids accept

Mama bear points to herMama bear points to her ((her her = = Mama BearMama Bear))

……but refused to acceptbut refused to accept Every bearEvery bearii points to her points to herii.. ((her her = each bear in = each bear in

turn)turn)

……then kids know Principle B (and what they then kids know Principle B (and what they lack is probably Principle P).lack is probably Principle P).

Chien & Wexler (1990)Chien & Wexler (1990) First three experiments established First three experiments established

that Principle B appears to be that Principle B appears to be delayed with respect to Principle A.delayed with respect to Principle A.

Fourth experiment establishes that Fourth experiment establishes that kids obey Principle B when kids obey Principle B when coindexation would be forced by a coindexation would be forced by a bound variable interpretation.bound variable interpretation.

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IV Principle B (but not Principle P) Principle B (but not Principle P)

applies also to bound pronouns—if applies also to bound pronouns—if the kids know Principle B and not the kids know Principle B and not Principle P, we expect to see kids Principle P, we expect to see kids getting getting bound pronouns bound pronouns right (unlike right (unlike referring pronounsreferring pronouns, as previous , as previous three experiments showed).three experiments showed).

C&W90: Experiment IV C&W90: Experiment IV itemsitems

Name-reflexiveName-reflexive Is Mama Bear touching herself?Is Mama Bear touching herself?

Name-pronounName-pronoun Is Mama Bear touching her?Is Mama Bear touching her?

C&W90: Experiment IV C&W90: Experiment IV itemsitems

Quantifier-reflexiveQuantifier-reflexive Is every bear touching herself?Is every bear touching herself?

Quantifier-pronounQuantifier-pronoun Is every bear touching her?Is every bear touching her?

C&W90: Experiment IV C&W90: Experiment IV controlscontrols

Name-nameName-name Is Mama Bear pointing to Goldilocks?Is Mama Bear pointing to Goldilocks?

Every-nameEvery-name Is every bear pointing to Goldilocks?Is every bear pointing to Goldilocks?

All-nameAll-name Are all of the bears pointing to Are all of the bears pointing to

Goldilocks?Goldilocks?

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IVcontrol resultscontrol results

Kids under 5 did poorly Kids under 5 did poorly on the mismatch (“no”) on the mismatch (“no”) condition for condition for everyevery and and allall; they did less poorly ; they did less poorly on the mismatch on the mismatch condition for names.condition for names.

Kids under 5 haven’t Kids under 5 haven’t quite mastered quite mastered quantifiers. quantifiers. (So we can’t (So we can’t test Principle B with test Principle B with them) them) (with this task)(with this task) G1=<4(48); G2=4-5(45); G1=<4(48); G2=4-5(45);

G3=5-6(44);G4=6-7(40)G3=5-6(44);G4=6-7(40)

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IVreflexive resultsreflexive results

Kids over 5 did near-perfect with respect to Kids over 5 did near-perfect with respect to Principle A (name-reflexive and quantifier-Principle A (name-reflexive and quantifier-reflexive match/mismatch).reflexive match/mismatch).

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IVname-pronounname-pronoun

Kids did badly on Kids did badly on the name-pronoun the name-pronoun mismatch cases, mismatch cases, steadily rising steadily rising from about 70% from about 70% wrong to about wrong to about 25% wrong 25% wrong between 4 and 7.between 4 and 7.

C&W90: Experiment IVC&W90: Experiment IVquantifier-pronounquantifier-pronoun

Under 5, kids were Under 5, kids were operating around chance operating around chance (they don’t understand (they don’t understand how quantifiers work yet)how quantifiers work yet)

Over 5, they were at 80% Over 5, they were at 80% correct and above—in correct and above—in particular, better than on particular, better than on the name-pronoun the name-pronoun condition; condition; they seem to they seem to know Principle Bknow Principle B.. (G3 went from 50% to 80%)(G3 went from 50% to 80%)

C&W90: Appendix IC&W90: Appendix IE4: name-pron & quant-E4: name-pron & quant-

pronpron

010203040506070

0 1 2 3 4 5 63;05

5;05

010203040506070

0 1 2 3 4 5 63;05

6;04

Chien & Wexler (1990)Chien & Wexler (1990)overall resultsoverall results

By the time kids understand By the time kids understand quantifiers like quantifiers like everyevery and and allall, , pronouns, and reflexives, they apply pronouns, and reflexives, they apply Principle B.Principle B.

Where accidental coreference is Where accidental coreference is possible (despite violating Principle P), possible (despite violating Principle P), kids will allow it about half of the time.kids will allow it about half of the time.

Thornton & Wexler Thornton & Wexler (1999)(1999)

What pragmatic knowledge do children lack? What pragmatic knowledge do children lack? Broadly speaking, children appear to have Broadly speaking, children appear to have difficulty evaluating other speakers’ difficulty evaluating other speakers’ intentions… As speakers, children fail to intentions… As speakers, children fail to distinguish between their knowledge and that distinguish between their knowledge and that of listeners… [c]hildren use pronouns without of listeners… [c]hildren use pronouns without first ensuring that a referent has been first ensuring that a referent has been introduced into the conversational context… introduced into the conversational context… As listeners, children appear to assign As listeners, children appear to assign interpretations to other speakers’ utterances interpretations to other speakers’ utterances that require special contextual support to be that require special contextual support to be felicitous for adults…felicitous for adults… (pp. 14-15) (pp. 14-15)

Thornton & Wexler Thornton & Wexler (1999)(1999)

Replicated Chien & Wexler (1990) and Replicated Chien & Wexler (1990) and also tested VP ellipsis cases—another also tested VP ellipsis cases—another case where a pronoun can be bound case where a pronoun can be bound (and (and so Principle B can be unambiguously so Principle B can be unambiguously tested)tested)..

Papa Bear wiped his facePapa Bear wiped his faceand Brother Bear did [and Brother Bear did [wiped his facewiped his face] too.] too. HisHis = Papa Bear’s (strict—coreference) = Papa Bear’s (strict—coreference) HisHis = Brother Bear’s (sloppy—bound) = Brother Bear’s (sloppy—bound)

ParallelismParallelism VP ellipsis is subject to a VP ellipsis is subject to a parallelismparallelism

constraint (parallelism between the overt constraint (parallelism between the overt and elided material). There are actually and elided material). There are actually two parts to parallelism:two parts to parallelism:

NPs in the elided and antecedent VP mustNPs in the elided and antecedent VP must Both be bound variablesBoth be bound variables or or both be referential both be referential

pronounspronouns ( (structural parallelismstructural parallelism)) If the pronouns are referential, they must have If the pronouns are referential, they must have

the same referent (the same referent (referential parallelismreferential parallelism).).

ParallelismParallelism PB wiped his face andPB wiped his face and

BB did [wiped his face] too.BB did [wiped his face] too. hishis in the first clause is bound by PB. in the first clause is bound by PB. His His

in second must also be bound by the in second must also be bound by the subject, there BB.subject, there BB.

His His in first clause is referential. It refers in first clause is referential. It refers to GB. to GB. His His in second clause must be in second clause must be referential, and must also refer to GB.referential, and must also refer to GB.

Kids are expected to obey structural Kids are expected to obey structural parallelism; parallelism; grammargrammar (not (not pragmaticspragmatics))

Four possible Four possible interpretationsinterpretations

Truth value judgment Truth value judgment tasktask

Experimenter 1 tells a story, moves the toys.Experimenter 1 tells a story, moves the toys. Experimenter 2 plays a puppet, who has to Experimenter 2 plays a puppet, who has to

report what’s just happened.report what’s just happened. The kid decides, based on whether the The kid decides, based on whether the

puppet told the truth about what happened, puppet told the truth about what happened, to either give the puppet a cookie or make it to either give the puppet a cookie or make it do pushups. If the puppet gets it wrong, the do pushups. If the puppet gets it wrong, the puppet asks the kid “What really happened?”puppet asks the kid “What really happened?”

19 kids, 4;0 to 5;119 kids, 4;0 to 5;1

Replicating the basic Replicating the basic resultresult

Bert and 3 reindeer have a snowball fight and Bert and 3 reindeer have a snowball fight and get all covered in snow. They go inside, Bert get all covered in snow. They go inside, Bert asks the reindeer to brush the snow off of him. 2 asks the reindeer to brush the snow off of him. 2 reindeer refuse, and commence brushing reindeer refuse, and commence brushing themselves off; the third helped a little, but themselves off; the third helped a little, but mainly concentrates on brushing the snow off mainly concentrates on brushing the snow off himself.himself.

Every reindeer brushed him.Every reindeer brushed him. (No: 92%) √G2 (No: 92%) √G2 WRH? “Only one of them helped him”WRH? “Only one of them helped him”

Every reindeer brushed himself.Every reindeer brushed himself. (Yes: 88%) √G2 (Yes: 88%) √G2 WRH? Other stuff too.WRH? Other stuff too.

Bert brushed him.Bert brushed him. (No: 42%) (group 1: No) (No: 42%) (group 1: No) Brushed hisself? Him? Wiped him? Bert??Brushed hisself? Him? Wiped him? Bert??

Testing VP ellipsisTesting VP ellipsis The caveman kissed the dinosaur and The caveman kissed the dinosaur and

Fozzie Bear did too. (Correct: 100%)Fozzie Bear did too. (Correct: 100%)

IH brushed someone else’s hair, trolls IH brushed someone else’s hair, trolls brushed their own hair.brushed their own hair.

The Incredible Hulk brushed his hair The Incredible Hulk brushed his hair and every Troll did too. (Yes[*SP]: 3%) and every Troll did too. (Yes[*SP]: 3%) √G2√G2 WRH? Only the IH did. (First conjunct WRH? Only the IH did. (First conjunct

consistently controls structural parallelism).consistently controls structural parallelism).

Testing VP ellipsisTesting VP ellipsis Lizard man and the ugly guy for some Lizard man and the ugly guy for some

reason opt to lift up some other characters. reason opt to lift up some other characters. Lizard man lifts the Smurf, ugly guy lifts Lizard man lifts the Smurf, ugly guy lifts Mickey.Mickey.

The lizard man lifted him and the ugly guy The lizard man lifted him and the ugly guy did too. (No: 79%)did too. (No: 79%) 21% overriding referential parallelism? 21% overriding referential parallelism?

Pragmatic? W&T say “probably”.Pragmatic? W&T say “probably”. Same kids as allow Same kids as allow MB points to her[=MB]MB points to her[=MB]??

Well, a subset. Pattern was: every kid who Well, a subset. Pattern was: every kid who allowed ref. parallelism violations alowed allowed ref. parallelism violations alowed MBpth, but not vice-versa.MBpth, but not vice-versa.

Testing Principle BTesting Principle B Everyone is covered with glitter, Batman and Everyone is covered with glitter, Batman and

2 turtles refuse to help Smurf out because 2 turtles refuse to help Smurf out because they are cleaning themselves. One turtle they are cleaning themselves. One turtle briefly helps Smurf, but then returns to briefly helps Smurf, but then returns to cleaning himself.cleaning himself. Batman cleaned him and every turtle did too. (No: Batman cleaned him and every turtle did too. (No:

86%) 86%) Batman cleaned himself and every turtle did too. Batman cleaned himself and every turtle did too.

(Yes: 95%)(Yes: 95%) Kids can accept a sloppy reading when Kids can accept a sloppy reading when

√Pr.B.√Pr.B.

Testing Principle CTesting Principle C He dusted the skeleton. (No: 92%) He dusted the skeleton. (No: 92%)

The kiwi bird cleaned Flash The kiwi bird cleaned Flash Gordon and he did too. (No: 54%Gordon and he did too. (No: 54%——adultsadults 83%!) 83%!) What’s going on? Stress (even What’s going on? Stress (even

implicit due to the ellipsis)? ?implicit due to the ellipsis)? ?

Thornton & Wexler Thornton & Wexler (1999)(1999)

Conclusions: Kids seem to know and Conclusions: Kids seem to know and obey Principle B, Principle C, and obey Principle B, Principle C, and structural parallelism.structural parallelism.

Kids seem to have more trouble with Kids seem to have more trouble with referential parallelism and the referential parallelism and the contexts for constructions of contexts for constructions of “guises”.“guises”.