The Syntax and Pragmatics of Reference in First Language Acquisition Margot Rozendaal Supervision: Prof. dr. Anne Baker University of Amsterdam ACLC-NAP 12 September 2003

Outline Features of linguistic reference Features of linguistic reference Present PhD-research Present PhD-research  Literature overview  General approach  Methodology  Analysis procedure  Later parts of project

What is linguistic reference? Speaker’s perspective: ‘A speaker uses a linguistic expression to refer to / identify an entity.’ (Brown & Yule 1983) Listener’s perspective: ‘A reference is relevant in relation to the context if its contextual effects are large and the effort to process it is small’ (Sperber & Wilson 1986)

Example A boy was holding a frog in a jar. When the boy went to sleep at night, the frog escaped from the jar. When the boy woke up in the morning, he noticed that the frog was gone and ø was very sad.

Reference: syntactic devices Amongst others: Nouns + determiners (indefinite, definite etc.) Nouns + determiners (indefinite, definite etc.) Pronominal elements (personal pronoun, demonstrative pronoun etc.) Pronominal elements (personal pronoun, demonstrative pronoun etc.) Zero anaphors Zero anaphors

Reference: pragmatic functions Introduction (new: a boy, a frog) Introduction (new: a boy, a frog) Maintenance (given: he) Maintenance (given: he) Shift (given: the boy, the frog) Shift (given: the boy, the frog)

Link between syntax and pragmatics in reference Newgiven (intro) (maintenance ) Indefinite > definite > pronoun > zero anaphor Indefinite > definite > pronoun > zero anaphor But there is also an influence of……. Mutual knowledge Mutual knowledge The presence of the referent in the physical context (exophoric reference) The presence of the referent in the physical context (exophoric reference)

Present PhD-research: goal Descriptive model of the acquisition of (appropriate) reference Descriptive model of the acquisition of (appropriate) reference  Influence of syntax  Influence of pragmatics To attain this goal: To attain this goal:  Cross-linguistic research  Different populations (SLI)

Literature overview Spontaneous speech Spontaneous speech1;11-9;0 English, Dutch, Russian (Brown 1973, Bennett-Kastor 1983, Peterson & Dodsworth 1991, Peterson 1993, Roelofs 1998, Avrutin & Brun 2001, a.o.) Picture-based narratives Picture-based narratives 3;6 – 10;10 English, Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese (Karmiloff-Smith 1979, Bamberg 1987, Clancy 1992, Kail & Hickmann 1992, Aarssen 1996, Küntay 2002, Hickmann 2003, a.o.)

General conclusions previous studies Children experience difficulties in estimating the listener’s knowledge: this leads to too many presupposing devices (definite NP’s, pronouns). Children experience difficulties in estimating the listener’s knowledge: this leads to too many presupposing devices (definite NP’s, pronouns). More difficulties with introductions than with maintenance / shift. More difficulties with introductions than with maintenance / shift. Difference between indefinite / definite NP’s is not used systematically until 5;0 Difference between indefinite / definite NP’s is not used systematically until 5;0

Problems in comparing previous studies Differences in data collection Differences in data collection Differences in research procedure Differences in research procedure Age ranges in studies Age ranges in studies Differences in data analysis Differences in data analysis

General approach of present research Data Data  Age of subjects starting at 2;0  Spontaneous speech Data analysis Data analysis  Differentiating three pragmatic functions  Development of correctness of forms and form-function mappings

Methodology Transcripts from CHILDES Transcripts from CHILDES Dutch, English, German, Swedish, French Dutch, English, German, Swedish, French Analysis procedure Analysis procedure  Not analyzable utterances  Analyzable references  Syntactic analysis  Pragmatic analysis  Analysis of correctness

Syntactic analysis Form of referential device Form of referential device  Noun, pronoun, type of article etc. Features of referential device Features of referential device  Number, gender, person Correctness Correctness

Pragmatic analysis Pragmatic function Pragmatic function  Introduction, maintenance, shift Communicative situation Communicative situation  Mutual knowledge / no mutual knowledge Environment Environment  Exophoric / endophoric reference Correctness Correctness

Correctness Correctness of syntactic form compared to its use in adult language Correctness of syntactic form compared to its use in adult language  Choice of gender of article, singular-plural distinction, person distinction of pronouns etc. Correctness of form-function mapping Correctness of form-function mapping  Choice of syntactic form in relation to pragmatic function (from an adult perspective)

Correctness: four possibilities (1) Syntactically and pragmatically correct Syntactically and pragmatically correct  A woman was walking down the street, she had blond hair. Syntactically incorrect / pragmatically correct Syntactically incorrect / pragmatically correct  Het fiets staat tegen de muur (…………..in reference shift)

Correctness: four possibilities (2) Syntactically correct / pragmatically incorrect (form-function mismatch) Syntactically correct / pragmatically incorrect (form-function mismatch)  She was walking down the street (………….in an NMK-introduction) Syntactically incorrect leads to pragmatically incorrect Syntactically incorrect leads to pragmatically incorrect  I saw a woman, he had blond hair (…………….in maintenance)

Form-function (mis)match: summary for introductions in Dutch Function  Form  INTRODUCTIONS MKNMK Indefinite article + N ++ Definite article + N +- Demonstrative article + N +- Proper name +- Personal pronoun + (exophoric) - Demonstrative pronoun + (exophoric) -

Example Josse 3;0,06 Form-function mismatch *GER: wat heb je gedaan op je verjaardag? *CHI: [/] met die slingers is dat. *CHI: [/] die wast [= was] iets in die auto. %com: JOS tells about his car he got for his birthday. *CHI: die lag er xx op. *GER: watte +...

Some errors in syntax leading to pragmatic difficulties Person selection Person selection Gender selection (pronoun or possessive article) Gender selection (pronoun or possessive article) Number selection (pronoun or possessive article Number selection (pronoun or possessive article Number of referents Number of referents Noun unclear (phonological / morphological errors) Noun unclear (phonological / morphological errors)

Example Josse 3;0,20 (syntactic error  pragmatic difficulty) *CHI: er wasse [= waren] mooie boden [=boten]. *GER: een bode ? *HAN: bomen, denk ik, nee ? *CHI: was ook boot. *CHI: boot. *HAN: een [>] natuurlijk.

Later parts of project Analysis of reference in spontaneous speech in five languages Analysis of reference in spontaneous speech in five languages Analysis of reference in data from SLI- children Analysis of reference in data from SLI- children Experiments on reference on the basis of results from spontaneous speech Experiments on reference on the basis of results from spontaneous speech Development of model on the acquisition of reference Development of model on the acquisition of reference