Pronoun Interpretation in the Second Language: DPBE or not? Roumyana Slabakova and Lydia White University of Southampton and McGill University Background Experiment Results (% accuracy) Delay of Principle B Effect (DPBE ): children acquiring L1 are often at chance when interpreting sentences with pronouns, while showing no delay with reflexives (e.g. Crain & McKee 1985; Jakubowicz 1984, 1989; Wexler & Chien 1985). Quantified versus referential antecedents: children are much more accurate when the antecedent is quantified than when it is referential (Chien & Wexler 1990): Every bear is touching her. Mama Bear is touching her. Clitics: Children acquiring languages with clitics do not demonstrate DPBE (Baauw et al. 1997). Reduced pronouns: English children are significantly more adult-like when they hear a reduced English pronoun as opposed to a full pronoun (Hartman, Sudo & Wexler 2012). John hit ‘m. John hit him. DPBE reflects difficulties due to an elevated processing load associated with computing and rejecting the possibility of accidental coreference (Grodzinsky & Reinhart 1993; Reinhart 1983, 2006). Accidental coreference is not permitted with quantified antecedents or with clitics/reduced pronouns. L2 learners of English (L1s French and Spanish), at intermediate (N = 37) and advanced (N = 44) levels of proficiency. Native speaker controls (N = 33). Experiment 1: Reduced pronouns with quantified and referential antecedents Experiment 2: Full pronouns with quantified and referential antecedents Truth Value Judgment Task, administered online. Context stories presented visually and aurally; test sentences presented only aurally. 24 story-test sentence combinations: 8 with referential antecedents, 8 with quantificational antecedents, 8 fillers. The same test items are used in both experiments, the only difference being whether the pronoun is reduced or full. Each story contains multiple event participants and is compatible with a reflexive as well as a pronominal construal. Within each condition, 4 sentences expect a Yes answer and 4 a No answer. Sample Test Item: Referential antecedent Tom, Helen, and Harry were going to a soccer party. Prizes were going to be given out for the best spray-painted logo. They all sprayed the logo of their favorite soccer teams on their arms. Tom badly wanted to win the competition, so he asked his friends to help him make his logo even better. Helen refused to help because she wanted to win as well. Harry wanted to help Tom, but he had no spray-paint left. Reduced pronoun: Harry sprayed’m. (Exp. 1) Full pronoun: Harry sprayed him. (Exp. 2) Expected answer: False Sample Test Item: Quantificational antecedent Jim, Jack, and Bert always drive to college, each of them using his own car. Their friend John doesn’t own a car so Jim, Jack, and Bert all agreed to drive him to school. But this week, on Monday Jim forgot to pick John up. On Tuesday, Jack overslept and drove to class alone. Only Bert was true to his word and drove John to school on Wednesday. This week, every student drove’m to school. (Exp. 1) This week, every student drove him to school. (Exp. 2) Reduced Pronouns Full Pronouns Design Intermediate learners: greater accuracy on quantificational antecedents than referential antecedents with full pronouns, parallel to L1 findings (see right graph above), greater accuracy with reduced pronouns versus full pronouns, within referential antecedents (compare purple markers in the two graphs above). Advanced learners and native speakers: no effects for antecedent type or pronoun type. DPBE in SLA DPBE has not been widely studied in L2 acquisition. White (1998): using TVJ, found no problems in pronoun interpretation. Kim et al. (2014): using eye-tracking, show greater accuracy on reflexives over pronouns. Neither study looked at the difference between quantificational and referential antecedents. Neither study looked at reduced pronouns. If DPBE reflects difficulties due to an elevated processing load, then difficulties of interpretation might be expected for (non-advanced) L2 learners, such that: Greater accuracy expected with quantified antecedents Greater accuracy expected with reduced pronouns versus full pronouns Conclusions Intermediate level L2ers have difficulties analogous to DPBE in L1A, relating to type of antecedent (referential versus quantificational) and type of pronoun (full versus phonologically reduced). Results support the claim that processing difficulties are implicated and that they can be overcome – the advanced L2ers do not differ from native speakers. Hartman, J., Sudo, Y., and Wexler, K. (2012). Principle B and phonologically reduced pronouns in Child English. Paper presented at the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition-North America (GALANA) 5. University of Kansas, October 11-13, 2012 Montrul, S.; Yoon, J.; and Kim, E. (2010). The on-line processing of Binding Principles A and B in L2 Acquisition: Evidence from Eye tracking. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, November, 5-7. Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge: MIT Press. White, L. (1998). Second language acquisition and binding principle B: child/adult differences. Second Language Research 14, 425-439. Predictions Selected References Acknowledgments: This research was funded by grants from SSHRCC and FRQSC BUCLD 2014