Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem

Journal of Child Language

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 23-52

  Spenader, Jennifer ^a   Smits, Erik Jan ^a   Hendriks, Petra ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LINGUISTICS; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHILD; CHILD LANGUAGE; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 61549086232     PISSN: 03050009     EISSN: 14697602     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0305000908008854     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bloom, P., Barss, A., Nicol, J. & Conway, L. (1994). Children's knowledge of binding and coreference: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language 70, 53-71.
2. Burzio, L. (1998). Anaphora and soft constraints. In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis & D. Pesetsky (eds), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, 93-13. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Chien, Y.-C. & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions on binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 13, 225-95.
4. Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J. & Phillips, C. (2006). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.
5. de Hoop, H. & Krämer, I. (2005/2006). Children's optimal interpretations of indefinite subjects and objects. Language Acquisition 13, 103-123.
6. de Villiers, J., Cahillane, J. & Altreuter, E. (2006). What can production reveal about Principle B? In K. U. Deen, J. Nomura, B. Schulz & B. D. Schwartz (eds), The Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition-North America, 89-100. University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.
7. Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 333-65.
8. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Grimshaw, J. & Rosen, S. T. (1990). Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 187-222.
10. Grosz, B., Weinstein, S. & Joshi, A. (1995). Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21, 203-225.
11. Hamann, C., Kowalski, O. & Philip, W. (1997). The French 'Delay of Principle B' Effect. In E. Hughes, M. Hughes & A. Greenhill (eds), Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 205-219. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
12. Hendriks, P., Englert, C., Wubs, E. & Hoeks, J. (to appear). Age differences in adults' use of referring expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information.
13. Hendriks, P. & Spenader, J. (2004). A bidirectional explanation of the pronoun interpretation problem. In P. Schlenker & E. Keenan (eds), Proceedings of the ESSLLI '04 Workshop on Semantic Approaches to Binding Theory. Nancy, France. http://www. linguistics.ucla.edu/people/schlenker/ BindingWorkshop.pdf
14. Hendriks, P. & Spenader, J. (2005/2006). When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition 13, 319-48.
15. Hendriks, P., van Rijn, H. & Valkenier, B. (2007). Learning to reason about speakers' alternatives in sentence comprehension: A computational account. Lingua 117, 1879-96.
16. Jakubowicz, C. (1984). On markedness and binding principles. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 14, 154-82.
17. Jakubowicz, C. (1991). L'acquisition des anaphores et des pronoms lexicaux en français. In J. Guéron & J. Y. Pollock (eds), Grammaire générative et syntaxe comparée, 229-53. Paris: Editions du CNRS, Sciences du Langage.
18. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes 1, 61-85.
19. Koster, C. (1993). Errors in anaphora acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
20. Koster, J. & Koster, C. (1986). The acquisition of bound and free anaphora. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
21. McDaniel, D. & Maxfield, T. L. (1992). Principle B and contrastive stress. Language Acquisition 2, 337-58.
22. McDaniel, D., Smith Cairns, H. & Hsu, J. R. (1990). Binding principles in the grammar of young children. Language Acquisition 1, 121-39.
23. McKee, C. (1992). A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition 2, 21-54.
24. Philip, W. & Coopmans, P. (1996). The double Dutch Delay of Principle B Effect. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes & A. Zukowski (eds), Proceedings of the 20th Boston University Conference on Language Development, 576-87. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
25. Reinhart, T. (2004). The processing cost of reference-set computation: Acquisition of stress shift and focus. Language Acquisition 12, 109-155.
26. Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Reinhart, T. (to appear). Processing or pragmatics? Explaining the coreference delay. In T. Gibson & N. Pearlmutter (eds), The processing and acquisition of reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Smits, E. J., Hendriks, P. & Spenader, J. (2007). Using very large parsed corpora and judgment data to classify verb reflexivity. In A. Branco (ed.), Anaphora: Analysis, algorithms and applications, 6th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC 2007, LNAI (Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence) #4410, 77-93. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
29. Thornton, R. & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP ellipsis and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.