Center and Periphery in the Grammar of Anaphora

Reinhart, Tanya

doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4548-7_3

Cited by 86 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6 In line with Reinhart (1983Reinhart ( , 1986, Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993) argued that the two types of anaphoric relations are subject to constraints originating in distinct modules of the language faculty. Pronouns, like reflexives, are subject to syntactic binding only when acting as bound variables (e.g.…”

Section: Acquisition Of Binding and Modularity: Predictions For Dsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…pronouns and reflexives. The binding theory adopted here incorporates the central notion of Reinhart (1986), namely, that the reference of a pronoun can be determined in one of two ways: syntactically and extra-syntactically. The former is the province of the syntax/semantics interface, whilst the latter is determined at the semantics/discourse interface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Syntactic deficit in Down syndrome: More evidence for the modular organisation of language

Perovic

2006

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Acquisition Of Binding and Modularity: Predictions For Dsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic deficit in Down syndrome: More evidence for the modular organisation of language

Perovic

2006

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This language-specific pragmatic principle or strategy must be learned. (For discussion of other possibly related pragmatic strategies, see Reinhart and Reuland (1986 concerning the two conditions involving a null pronominal and a pictorial context, that is the FNCR (name~ . .…”

Section: Results Of the Chinese Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese pronominals in universal grammar: A study of linear precedence and command in Chinese and English children's first language acquisition

Lust

Chien

Chiang

et al. 1996

J East Asian Linguis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper concerns a particular problem raised by Mandarin Chinese pronouns, viz. they appear to obey a linear precedence constraint unlike English (e.g., Huang (1982)). This calls into question the nature of UG and how it can account for these crosslinguistic differences.In this paper, experimental analyses of children's (null and lexical) pronoun interpretation in Chinese and English argue for universal 'structure dependence' (including 'command') in the Initial State and against either a universal or a languagespecific role of 'linear precedence' alone. A linear precedence effect is developmentally achieved only in Chinese.The acquisition results provoke a revised theoretical analysis of the grammar of pronouns in Chinese and a strong form of UG. We argue that it is not necessary to propose a language-specific definition of 'command' in Chinese in order to explain the apparent linearity effects on Chinese pronouns, and it is not necessary to propose a linear precedence rule in UG. Rather, consideration of an articulated structure of Chinese NP, which is motivated by the acquisition data, explains essential differences between lexical ta pronominals and null pronominals in Chinese and accounts for linearity effects in the adult language. We propose that ta pronominals are not themselves in argument position and are not N o heads. They are not equivalent to null pronominals.Together the experimental and theoretical results support a 'strong continuity' theory of UG in which universal "principles and parameters" of UG continuously constrain the child's mapping from UG to a specific-language grammar. Language development, and the Chinese precedence effect for pronouns, lies in pragmatic/semantic features connected with the lexical realization of the specifier of a pronominal NP, not in the development of UG. tigation we are led to new insights regarding the grammar of Chinese pronominals and its relation to Universal Grammar (UG). This paper represents one component of a cross-linguistic project in which first language acquisition of English and several other languages are compared in order to investigate the nature of principles and parameters in UG. We assume the theory of UG (as summarized in (1)) to provide a model of the "Initial State" for language development (cf. Lust (to appear, in preparation)).

show abstract

“…The explanations have included a pragmatic principle (Principle P, which precludes coreference) that young children have not mastered, the lexical learning hypothesis (e.g., Chien & Wexler, 1990;Reinhart, 1983Reinhart, , 1986), a combination of plausibility and relative character salience in a story (Elbourn, 2005), and a processing limitation account (Solan, 1987). Nevertheless, Principles A, B, and C remain a useful framework for characterizing issues in development.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing Binding Relations in Specific Language Impairment

Schwartz

Hestvik

Seiger-Gardner

et al. 2016

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This sentence processing experiment examined the abilities of children with specific language impairment (SLI) and children with typical language development (TD) to establish relations between pronouns or reflexives and their antecedents in real time. Method: Twenty-two children with SLI and 24 age-matched children with TD (7;3-10;11 [years;months]) participated in a cross-modal picture priming experiment to determine whether they selectively activated the correct referent at the pronoun or reflexive in sentences. Triplets of auditory sentences, identical except for the presence of a pronoun, a reflexive, or a noun phrase along with a picture probe were used.Results: The children with TD were slightly more accurate in their animacy judgments of pictures, but the groups exhibited the same reaction time (RT) pattern. Both groups were slower for sentences with pronouns than with reflexives or noun phrases. The children with SLI had longer RTs than their peers with TD. Conclusions: Children with SLI activated only the appropriate antecedent at the pronoun or reflexive, reflecting intact core knowledge of binding as was true for their TD peers. The overall slower RT for children with SLI suggests that any deficit may be the result of processing deficits, perhaps attributable to interference effects.

show abstract

Center and Periphery in the Grammar of Anaphora

Cited by 86 publications

References 10 publications

Syntactic deficit in Down syndrome: More evidence for the modular organisation of language

Syntactic deficit in Down syndrome: More evidence for the modular organisation of language

Chinese pronominals in universal grammar: A study of linear precedence and command in Chinese and English children's first language acquisition

Processing Binding Relations in Specific Language Impairment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About